SELECT TREATISES
OF
S. ATHANASIUS,
ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA,
IN CONTROVERSY WITH THE ARIANS,
TRANSLATED,
WITH NOTES AND INDICES.
OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER ;
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON.
MDCCCXLII.
5t952
CONTENTS.
EPISTLE OF S. ATHANASIUS
IN DEFENCE OF THE N1CENE DEFINITION.
CHAP. I.
INTRODUCTION.
The complaint of the Arians against the Nicene Council ; their fickleness ;
they are like Jews ; their employment of force instead of reason. Page 1
CHAP. II.
CONDUCT OF THE ARIANS TOWARDS THE NICENE COUNCIL.
Ignorant as well as irreligious to attempt to reverse an Ecumenical Council ;
proceedings at Nicaea; Eusebians then signed what they now complain
of; on the unanimity of true teachers, and the process of tradition ; changes
of the Arians. 5
CHAP. III.
THE MEANING OF THE WORD SON AS APPLIED TO OUR LORD.
Two senses of the word, 1. adoptive, 2. substantial. Attempts of Arians to
find a third meaning between these ; e. g. that our Lord alone was created
immediately by God ; Asterius's view ; or that our Lord alone partakes
the Father. The second and true sense; God begets as He makes, really ;
though His creation and generation not like man's ; His generation inde-
pendent of time; generation implies an internal, and therefore an eternal,
act in God; explanation of Prov. 8, 22. 10
b
11 CONTENTS.
CHAP. IV.
PROOF OF THE CATHOLIC SENSE OF THE WORD SON.
Power, Word or Reason, and Wisdom, the names of the Son, imply
eternity; as well as the Father's title of Fountain. The Arians reply
that these do not formally belong to the essence of the Sou, but are
names given Him; that God has many words, powers, &c. Why there
is but one Son, Word, &c. All the titles of the Son coincide in Him. 24
CHAP. V.
DEFENCE OF THE COUNCIL'S PHRASES, " FROM THE SUBSTANCE,"
AND " ONE IN SUBSTANCE."
Objection that the phrases are not scriptural ; we ought to look at the sense
more than the wording. Evasion of the Eusebians as to the phrase " of
God," which is in Scripture; their evasion of all explanations but those
which the Council selected; which were intended to negative the Arian
formulae. Protest against their conveying any material sense. 30
CHAP. VI.
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL.
Theognostus; Dionysius of Alexandria ; Dionysius of Rome ; Origen. 43
CHAP. VII.
This term afterwards adopted by the Arians ; and why ; three senses of it.
A fourth sense. Ingenerate denotes God in contrast to His creatures,
not to His Son; Father the scriptural title instead ; Conclusion. 51
APPENDIX.
Letter of Eusebius of Csesarea to the People of his Diocese. 59
NOTE ON p. 61.
On the meaning of the phrase ig Irigat uvrtffvdio'tut * tlrlas in the Nicene
Anathema. 66
CONTENTS. Ill
EPISTLE OF S. ATHANASIUS,
CONCERNING THE COUNCILS HELD AT ABIMINUM IN
ITALY AND AT SELEUCIA IN ISAURIA.
CHAP. I.
HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Reasons why two Councils were called. Inconsistency and folly of calling
any; and of the style of the Arian formularies; occasion of the Nicene
Councils. Proceedings at Ariminuin ; Letter of the Council to Constantius ;
its decree. Proceedings at Seleucia ; reflections on the conduct of the
Arians. 73
CHAP. II.
HISTORY OF ARIAN OPINIONS.
Arius's own sentiments; his Thalia and Letter to S. Alexander. Corrections
by Eusehius and others ; extracts from the works of Asterius. Letter of
the Council of Jerusalem. First Creed of Ariaus at the Dedication at
Antioch; second, Lucian's on the same occasion; third, by Theophronius ;
fourth, sent into Gaul to Constans; fifth, the Macrostich sent into Italy;
sixth, at Sirmium ; seventh, at the same place ; and eighth also, as intro-
duced above in Chapter i ; ninth, at Seleucia ; tenth, at Constantinople ;
eleventh, at Antioch. 93
CHAP. III.
ON THE SYMBOLS " OF THE SUBSTANCE" AND " ONE IN
SUBSTANCE."
We must look at the sense not the wording. The offence excited is at the
sense; meaning of the Symbols; the question of their not being in
Scripture. Those who hesitate only at the latter of the two, are not to be
considered Arians. Reasons why " One in substance" better than " Like
in substance," yet the latter may be interpreted in a good sense. Ex-
planation of the rejection of " One in substance" by the Council which
condemned Samosatene ; use of the word by Dionysius of Alexandria.
Parallel variation in the use of " Ingenerate ;" quotation from S. Ignatius
and another. Reasons for using " One in substance ;" objections to it ;
examination of the word itself. Further documents of the Council of
Ariminum 129
NOTE ON CHAPTER II.
Concerning the Confessions at Sirmium. 160
NOTE ON PAGE 147.
On the alleged Confession of Antioch against Paul of Samosata. 165
b 2
IV CONTENTS.
FOUR DISCOURSES
OF S. ATHANASIUS AGAINST THE ARIANS.
DISCOURSE I.
CHAP. I.
INTRODUCTION.
Reason for writing ; certain persons indifferent about Arianism ; Arians are
not Christians, because sectaries always take the name of their founder.
177
CHAP. II.
EXTRACTS FROM THE THALIA OF ARIUS.
Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always f
the Son out of nothing; once He was not; He was not before His gene-
ration; He was created ; named Wisdom and Word after God's attributes;
made that He might make us ; one out of many powers of God ; alterable ;
exalted on God's foreknowledge of what He was to be ; not very God ; but
called so, as others, by participation; foreign in sub stance from the Father;
does not know or see the Father; does not know Himself. 185
CHAP. III.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.
The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine is new, as well as
unscriptural. Statement of the Catholic doctrine, that the Son is proper
to the Father's Substance, and eternal. Restatement of Arianism in
contrast, that He is a creature with a beginning. The controversy comes
to this issue, whether one whom we are to believe in as God, can be so
in name only, and is merely a creature. What pretence then is there for
being indifferent in the controversy? The Arians rely on state patronage,
and dare not avow their tenets. 189
CHAP. IV.
THAT THE SON IS ETERNAL AND INCREATE.
These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first proved by direct texts
of Scripture. v Concerning the " Eternal Power" of God in Rom. i. 20.
which is shewn to mean the Son. Remarks on the Arian formula,
11 Once the Son was not," its supporters not daring to speak of " a time
when the Son was not." 195
CONTENTS. T
CHAP. V.
SUBJECT CONTINUED.
'he objection, that the Son's eternity makes Him co-ordinate with the
Father, introduces the subject of His Divine Sonship, as a second proof
of His eternity. The word Son is used in a transcendant, but is to be un-
derstood in a real sense. Since all things partake of the Father in par-
taking of the Son, He is the whole participation of the Father, that is,
He is the Son by nature; for to be wholly participated is to beget. 200
CHAP. VI.
SUBJECT CONTINUED.
Third proof of the Son's eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of His
consubstantiality ; as the Creator ; as One of the Blessed Trinity ; as
Wisdom; as Word; as Image. But if the Son be a perfect Image of
the Father, why is He not a Father also ? because God, being perfect,
is not the origin of a race. The Father only a Father, because the
Only Father ; the Son only a Son because the Only Son. Men are not
really fathers and really sons, but shadows of the True. The Son does
not become a Father, because He has received from the Father, to be
immutable and ever the same. 205
CHAP. VII.
OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING PROOF.
Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was already, or
One that was not. 213
CHAP. VIII.
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.
Whether we may decide the question by the parallel of human sons, which are
born later than their parents. No, for the force of the analogy lies in the
idea of connaturality. Time is not involved in the idea of Son, but is
adventitious to it, and does not attach to God, because He is without
parts and passions. The titles Word and Wisdom guard our thoughts of
Him and His Son from this misconception. God not a Father, as a Creator,
in posse from eternity, because creation does not relate to the Substance
of God, as generation does.
VI CONTENTS.
CHAP. IX.
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.
Whether is the Ingenerate one or two? Inconsistent in Arians to use an
unscriptural word ; necessary to define its meaning. Different senses of
the word. If it means " without Father," there is but One Ingenerate;
if " without beginning or creation," there are Two. Inconsistency of
Asterius. " Ingenerate" is a title of God, not in contrast with the Son,
hut with creatures, as is " Almighty," or " Lord of powers." " Father"
is the truer title, not only as Scriptural, hut as implying a Son, and our
adoption as sons. 224
CHAP. X,
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.
How the Word has free-will, yet without being alterable. He is unalter-
able because the Image of the Father; proved from texts. 230
CHAP. XI.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; AND FIRST, PHIL. ii. 9, 10.
Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine ; e. g. Phil. ii.
9, 10. Whether the words " Wherefore God hath highly exalted" prove
moral probation and advancement. Argued against, first, from the force
of the word " Son," according to the Regula Fidei; which is inconsistent
with such an interpretation. Next, the passage examined. Ecclesiastical
sense of" highly exalted," and "gave," and "wherefore;" viz. as being
spoken with reference to our Lord's manhood. Secondary sense; viz. as
implying the Word's " exaltation" through the Resurrection in the same
sense in which Scripture speaks of His descent in the Incarnation; how
the phrase does not derogate from the Nature of the Word. 233
CHAP. XII.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; SECONDLY, PSALM xlv. 7, 8.
Whether the words " therefore," " anointed," &c. imply that the Word has
been rewarded. Argued against, first, from the word " fellows" i. e. " par-
takers." He is anointed with the Spirit in His manhood to sanctify
human nature. Therefore the Spirit descended on Him in Jordan, when
in the flesh. And for us He is said to sanctify Himself, and in order to
give us the glory He has received. The word " wherefore" implies His
divinity. " Thou hast loved righteousness," &c. do not imply trial or
choice. 246
CONTENTS. VII
CHAP. XIII.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; THIRDLY, HEBREWS i. 4.
Additional texts brought as objections; e. g. Hebr. i. 4. vii. 22. Whether
the word "better" implies likeness to the Angels; and "made" or
" become" implies creation. Necessary to consider the circumstances
under which Scripture speaks. Difference between " better" and
"greater;" texts in proof. " Made" or " become" is a general word.
Contrast in Heb. i.4. between the Son and the Works, in point of nature.
The difference of the punishments under the two Covenants shews the
difference of the natures of the Son and the Angels. " Become" relates,
not to the Nature of the Word, but to His manhood and office and re-
lation towards us. Parallel passages in which the term is applied to the
Eternal Father. 257
NOTE ON p. 214.
On the meaning of the formula «rg<» ymnfawt cvx, wt in the Nicene
Anathema. 272
DISCOURSE II.
CHAP. XIV.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; FOURTHLY, HEBREWS ill. 2.
Introduction; the Regula Fidci counter to an Arian sense of the text;
which is not supported by the word "servant," nor by "made" which oc-
curs in it; (how can the Judge be among the " works" which " God will
bring into judgment?") nor by "faithful;" and is confuted by the im-
mediate context, which is about Priesthood ; and by the foregoing passage,
which explains the word " faithful" to mean trustworthy, as do 1 Pet.
iv. fin. and other texts. On the whole " made" may safely be understood
either of the divine generation or the human creation. 281
CHAP. XV.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; FIFTHLY, ACTS ii. 36.
The Regula Fideimnst be observed ; " made" applies to our Lord's manhood ;
and to His manifestation ; and to His office relative to us ; and is relative
to the Jews. Parallel instance in Gen. 27, 29, 37. The context con-
tradicts the Arian interpretation. 297
Vlll CONTENTS.
CHAP. XVI.
INTRODUCTORY TO PROVERBS viti. 22. THAT THE SON IS NOT
A CREATURE.
Arian formula," A creature but not as one of the creatures ;" but each creature
is unlike all other creatures ; and no creature can create. The Word then
differs from all creatures in that in which they, though otherwise differing,
all agree together, as creatures ; viz. iu being an efficient Cause ; in being
the one Divine Medium or Agent in creation; moreover in being the
Revealer of the Father; and in being the Object of worship. 306
CHAP. XVII.
INTRODUCTION TO PROVERBS viii. 22. CONTINUED.
Absurdity of supposing a Son or Word created in order to the creation of
other creatures; as to the creation being unable to bear God's immediate
hand, God condescends to the lowest. Moreover, if the Son a creature,
He too could not bear God's hand, and an infinite series of media will be
necessary. Objected, that, as Moses who led out the Israelites was a man,
so our Lord; but Moses was not the Agent in creation: — objected again,
that unity is found in created ministrations ; but all such ministrations are
defective and dependent: — again, that He learned to create; yet could
God's Wisdom need teaching? and why should He learn, if the Father
" worketh hitherto?" If the Son was created to create us, He is for our
sake, not we for His. 315
CHAP. XVIII.
INTRODUCTION TO PROVERBS viii. 22. CONTINUED.
Contrast between the Father's operations immediately and naturally in the
Son, instrumentally by the creatures ; Scripture terms illustrative of this.
Explanation of these illustrations ; which should be interpreted by the
doctrine of the Church ; perverse sense put on them by the Arians,
refuted. Mystery of Divine Generation. Contrast between God's Word
and man's word drawn out at length. Asterius betrayed into holding two
Ingenerates ; his inconsistency. Baptism how by the Son as well as by
the Father. On the Baptism of heretics. Why Arian worse than other
heresies?. 323
CONTENTS. IX.
CHAP. XIX.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS viii. 22.
Proverbs are of a figurative nature, and must be interpreted as such. We
must interpret them, and in particular this passage, by the Regula Fidei.
" He created Me" not equivalent to " I am a creature." Wisdom a
creature so far forth as Its human body. Again, If He is a creature, it
is as "a Beginning of ways," an office which, though not an attribute, is
a consequence, of a higher and divine nature. And it is " for the works,"
which implies that the works existed, and therefore much more He, before
He was created. Also "the Lord" not the Father "created" Him,
which implies the creation was that of a servant. 342
CHAP. XX.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS viii. 22. CONTINUED.
Our Lord is said to be created " for the works," i. e. with a particular
purpose, which no mere creatures are ever said to be. Parallel of Isai.
49, 5. &c. When His manhood is spoken of, a reason for it is added ;
not so when His Divine Nature ; texts in proof. 353
CHAP. XXI.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; SIXTHLY, PROVERBS viii. 22. CONTINUED.
Our Lord not said in Scripture to be "created," nor the works to be "begotten."
"In the beginning" means, in the case of the works, "from the beginning."
Scripture passages explained. We are made by God first, begotten next;
creatures by nature, sons by grace. Christ begotten first, made or created
afterwards. Sense of " First-born of the dead ;" of " First-born among
many brethren;" of " First-born of all creation," contrasted with " Only-
begotten." Further interpretation of " Beginning of ways," and " for the
works." Why a creature could not redeem; why redemption was ne-
cessary at all. Texts which contrast the Word and the works. 362
CHAP. XXII.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; SIXTHLY, THE CONTEXT OF PROVERBS viii. 22.
viz. 22—30.
It is right to interpret this passage by the Regula Fidei. " Founded" is used
in contrast to superstructure ; and it implies, as in the case of stones in
building, previous existence. " Before the world" signifies the divine
intention and purpose. Recurrence to Prov. viii. 22. and application of it
to created Wisdom as seen in the works. The Son reveals the Father,
first by the works, then by the Incarnation. 386
CONTENTS.
DISCOURSE III.
CHAP. XXIII.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; SEVENTHLY, JOHN xiv. 10.
Introduction. The doctrine of the Coinherence. The Father and the Son
Each whole and perfect God. They are in Each Other, because their
Suhstance is One and the Same. They are Each Perfect and have One
Suhstarice, because the Second Person is the Son of the First. Asterius's
evasive explanation of the text under review; refuted. Since the Son has
all that the Father has, He is His Image ; and the Father is the One
Only God, because the Son is in the Father. 398
CHAP. XXIV.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; EIGHTHLY, JOHN Xvii. 3. AND THE LIKE.
Our Lord's divinity cannot interfere with His Father's prerogatives, as the
One God, which were so earnestly upheld by the Son. " One" is used in
contrast with false gods and idols, not with the Son, through whom the
Father spoke. Our Lord adds His Name to the Father's, as being in-
cluded in Him. The Father the First, not as if the Son were not First
too, but as Origin. 409
CHAP. XXV.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; NINTHLY, JOHN X. 30. XVli. 11, &C.
Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and judgment;
but so are all good men, nay things inanimate ; contrast of the Son.
Oneness between Them is in nature, because there is oneness in operation.
Angels not objects of prayer, because they do not work together with
God, but the Son; texts quoted. Seeing an Angel, is not seeing God.
Arians in fact hold two Gods, and tend to Gentile polytheism. Arian
explanation that " The Father and Son are one, as we are one with Christ,"
is put aside by the Regnla Fidei, and shewn invalid by the usage
of Scripture in illustrations ; the true force of the comparison ; force of
the terms used. Force of " in us ;" force of " as;" confirmed by S. John.
In what sense we are "in God" and His " sons." 414
CONTENTS. XI
CHAP. XXVI.
INTRODUCTORY TO TEXTS FROM THE GOSPELS ON THE
INCARNATION.
Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Arians compared to the Jews.
We must recur to the Regula Fidei. Our Lord did not come into, but
became, man, and therefore had the acts and affections of the flesh. The
same works divine and human. Thus the flesh was purified, and men
were made immortal. Reference to 1 Pet. iv. 1 . 436
CHAP. XXVII.
TEXTS EXPLAINED; TENTHLY, MATTHEW XXviii. 18.
JOHN iii. 35. &c.
These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son ; they fall
in with the Catholic doctrine concerning the Son ; they are explained by
" so" in John 5, 26. (Anticipation of the next chapter.) Again, they
are used with reference to our Lord's human nature; and for our sake,
that we might receive and not lose, as receiving in Him. And consistently
with other parts of Scripture, which shew that He had the power, &c.
before He received it. He was God and man, and His actions are often
at once divine and human. 451
CHAP. XXVIII.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; ELEVENTHLY, MARK xiii. 32. AND
LUKE ii. 52.
Arian explanation of the former text contradicts the Regula Fidei; and
the context. Our Lord said that He was ignorant of the Day, by reason
of His human nature ; from sympathy with man. Jf the Holy Spirit knows
the Day, therefore the Son knows ; if the Son knows the Father, therefore
He knows the Day; if He has all that is the Father's, therefore know-
ledge of the Day; if in the Father, He knows the Day in the Father; if
the Father's Image, He knows the Day; if He created and upholds all
things, He knows the Day when they will cease to be. He knows not, as
representing us, argued from Matt. 24, 42. As He asked about Lazarus's
grave, &c. yet knew, so He knows ; as S. Paul said, " whether in the body I
know not," &c. yet knew, so He knows. He said He knew not, for our
profit ; that we be not curious, (as in Acts 1, 7- where on the contrary He
did not say He knew riot;) that we be not secure and slothful. As the
Almighty asks of Adam and of Cain, yet knew, so the Son knows. Again,
He also advanced in wisdom, as man; else He made Angels perfect before
Himself. He advanced, in that the Godhead was manifested in Him more
fully as time went on. 459
CONTENTS.
CHAP. XXIX.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; TWELFTHLY, MATTHEW XXvi. 39 ;
JOHN xii. 27. &C.
Arian inferences are against the Regula Fidei, as before. He wept and
the like, as man. Other texts prove Him God. God could not fear.
He feared because His flesh feared. 476
CHAP. XXX.
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED, AS IN CHAPTERS vii — X.
Whether the Son is begotten at the Father's will ? This virtually the same as
whether Once He was not ? and used by the Arians to introduce the latter
question. The Regula Fidei answers it at once in the negative by contrary
texts. The Arians follow the Valentinians in maintaining a precedent will ;
which really is only exercised by God towards creatures. Instances from
Scripture. Inconsistency of Asterius. If the Son by will, there must be
another Word before Him. If God is good, or exist, by His will, then is
the Son by His will. If He willed to have reason or wisdom, then is His
Word and Wisdom at His will. The Son is the Living Will, and has all
titles which denote connaturality. That will which the Father has to the
Son, the Son has to the Father. The Father wills the Son and the Son
wills the Father. 484
DISCOURSE IV.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 498
Subject I.
The doctrine of the Monarchia implies or requires, not negatives,
the substantial existence of the Word and Son.
§§. 1-5-
The substantiality of the Word proved from Scripture. If the One Origin
be substantial, Its Word is substantial. Unless the Word and Son be a
second Origin, or a work, or an attribute (and so God be compounded), or
at the "same time Father, or involve a second nature in God, He is from
God's Substance and distinct from Him. Illustration of John 10, 30.
drawn from Deut. 4, 4. 512
CONTENTS. Xlll
Subject II.
Texts explained against the Arians, viz. Matt, xxviii. 18. Phil. ii. 9.
Eph. i. 20.
§§. 6, 7.
When the Word and Son hungered, wept, and was wearied, He acted as
our Mediator, taking on Him what was ours, that He might impart to us
what was His. 520
Subject III.
Comparison of Photinians with Arians.
§.8.
Arians date the Son's beginning earlier than the Photinians. 521
Subject IV.
(Being Subject 1. continued.}
§§. 9, 10.
Unless Father aiid Son are two in name only, or as parts and so each
imperfect, or two gods, they are consubstantial, one in Godhead, and the
Son from the Father. 522
Subject V.
(Being Subject 3. continued.)
§§.11,12.
Photiniaus, like Arians, say that the Word was, not indeed created, but deve-
loped, to create us ; as if the Divine silence were a state of inaction, and
when God spake by the Word, He acted ; or as if there were a going forth
and return of the Word ; a doctrine which implies change and imperfection
in Father and Son. 525
Subject VI.
The Sabellian doctrine of dilatation and contraction.
§§. 13, 14.
Such a doctrine precludes all real distinctions of personality in the Divine
Nature. Illustration of the Scripture doctrine from 2 Cor. 6, 1 1, &c. 522
XIV CONTENTS.
Subject VII.
On (he Identity of the Word with the Son, against Photinians and
Sam.osatenes.
§§. 15—24.
Since the Word is from God, He must be Son. Since the Son is from
everlasting, He must he the Word; else either He is superior to the
Word, or the Word is the Father. Texts of the New Testament which
state the unity of the Son with the Father ; therefore the Son is the Word.
Three heretical hypotheses— 1 . That the Man is the Son ; refuted. 2. That
the Word and Man together are the Son; refuted. 3. That the Word
became Son on His incarnation ; refuted. Texts of the Old Testament
which speak of the Son. If they are merely prophetical, then those
concerning the Word may be such also. 531
Subject VIII.
(Being Subject 4. continued.)
§.25.
Heretical illustration from 1 Cor. 12, 4. refuted. 543
Subject IX.
(Being Subject 7. continued.)
That the Son is the Co-existing Word, argued from the New Testament.
Texts from Old Testament continued; especially Ps. 110, 3. Besides,
the Word in Old Testament may be Son in New, as Spirit in Old
Testament is Paraclete in New. Objection from Acts 10, 36. urged by the
Samosatenes; answered by parallels, such as 1 Cor. 1, 5. Lev. 9, 7. &c.
Necessity of the Word's taking flesh, viz. to sanctify, yet without de-
stroying, the flesh. 545
CORRIGENDA.
Page 8. line 14. for for read from
15. note d. vid. p. 311, note i.
27. line 19. for the Word, read a word,
note i. line 11. for there be read He be
30. line 8. for which read whom
34. heading, for Synod read Symbol
69. line 18. from fin. for does read does not
80. note r. col. 2. and 191. heading, for Father read fathers
81. note t. circ. fin. for repeats read repents twice
85. and 122. read Germinius
87. line 8. for those read whom
91. note. col. 2. for Ariorum read Arianorum
97. fin. for of Him. ..being read that He. ..was
108. note i. for interpretators read' interpreters
119. note n. col. 1. line 18. for the Father's read a father's
124. note y. fin. for Anomrean read the Anoniffion
125. note. col. 1. fin. for the read that
130. line 4. insert been after have
149. margin, for Theb. read Heb.
151. line 13. for is read in
155. note f. col. 1. line 6. from fin. for Father read Sou
157. note i. col. 2. for mentioned read mentions
174. line 12. from fin. after Grat. 30. add and passim.
176. line 10. omit certainly.
194. line 1. for who read whom
205. ref. 4. for ftevos read (taveis
211. note, line 7. for even read ever
col. 2. line 2. for statement read implication
220. line 6. for as to all such speculations concerning read in attri-
buting such things to
221. note f. col. 1. for irreligionem read irreligiosam
222. circ. fin. for Son. . . He read son. . .he
223. note, for is to be read to be
239. note, for humiliabus read humiliatus
243. note, for did so read He did so
244. note k. line 6. for to come read it comes
246. note fin. for Xcyov read KV^IOV
253. note fin. for as read in
343. line 10. for . B read ; b
397. heading, for Each read The
413. note. col. 2. init.for singly read simply
440. three times, for drift read scope
453. note. col. 1. line 25. for but read hardly more than
486. note g. col. 2. lines 3 and 6. for as. . .si read which. . .si non
In Letters and Numbers.
Page 31. note p. for 46. read 40.
81. top margin. add^.G.
101. line 3. for clerks read clerks r
109. note m. for the same year read next year
157. note i. col. 1 . line 4. for ref. 4. read ref. 5.
162. line 10. for A.D. 367. mzrf A.D. 357.
188. ref. 4. for 3 rmrf 4
193. ref. 5. /or 5 rearf 4
194. ref. 2. /or 79 read 179
210. note. col. 1. for 36. rmrf 30, 20.
211. lettering of note, for 1 read f
217. note d. for g read z
218. note a. for 13. raz</ 10.
256. note o. init. for ref. 4. rearf ref. 5.
266. ref. 2. /or 144. raw* 244.
283. note c. fin. and 287. note g. fin. for h read i
285. ref. 2. for 3 rairf 4
290. ref. 1. /or 44. read 43.
332. lettering of note, read s
378. note e. fin. for 67. read 56.
393. ref. 2. for 291. mid 391.
394. line 4. from fin. and margin, for water read water5 and for
iii. 35. read 5iii. 35.
EPISTLE
OF
S. A T H A N A S I U S,
ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA,
IN DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION.
CHAP. I.
INTRODUCTION.
The complaint of the Arians against the Nicene Council; their fickleness;
they are like Jews ; their employment of force instead of reason.
1. THOU hast done well, in signifying to me the discussion CHAP.
thou hast had with the advocates of Arianism, among whom **
were certain of the friends of Eusebius, as well as very many *'
of the brethren who hold the doctrine of the Church.
I hailed thy vigilance for the love of Christ, which excel-
lently exposed the irreligion8 of their heresy; while I mar-
velled at the effrontery which led the Arians, after all the past
detection of unsoundness and futility in their arguments, nay,
after the general conviction of their extreme perverseness,
still to complain like the Jews, " Why did the Fathers at
Nicaea use terms not in Scripture b, c Of the substance' and
a ivffiQtict, affifitiet, &c. here trans- «<re/3«f, as being without devotion, the
lated "religion, irreligion, religious, Son tvirt^s devout, as paying devotion to
&c.&c." are technical words throughout, the Father." Socr. Hist, ii.43. Hence
being taken from St. Paul's text, " Great Arius ends his Letter to Eusebius with
is the mystery of godliness," tufifitittf) a,>.n6us tvffi(Zrt. Theod. Hist. i. 4.
i. e. orthodoxy. Such too seems to be b It appears that the Arians did not
the meaning of " godly admonitions," venture to speak disrespectfully of the
and "godly judgments, "and "this godly definition of the Council till the date
and well-learned man," in our Ordina- (A.D. 350.) of this work ; when Acaeius
tion Services. The Latin translation is headed them. Yet the plea here used,
" pius," " pietas." It might be in the unscriptural character of its symbol,
some respects suitably rendered by had been suggested to Constantius on
" devout" and its derivatives. On its his accession, A.D. 337, by the Arian
familiar use in the controversy depends priest, the favourite of Constantia, to
the blasphemous jest of Eudoxius, whom Constantine had entrusted his
Arian Bishop of Constantinople, which will, Theod. Hist. ii. 3; and Eusebius
was received with loud laughter in the of Csesarea glances at it, at the time of
Cathedral, and remained in esteem the Council, in the letter to his Church,
down to Socrates's day, " The Father is which is subjoined to this Treatise.
The Aridits, like the Jews, lunrillwg to believe,
NICEN. * One in substance ?' ' Thou then, as a man of learning,
'J 'f in spite of their subterfuges, didst convict them of talking
OftOOUfflOt , , .
to no purpose; and they in devising them were but acting
suitably to their own evil disposition. For they are as
variable and fickle in their sentiments, as chameleons in
their colours c ; and when exposed they look confused ; and
when questioned they hesitate, and then they lose shame,
and betake themselves to evasions. And then, when detected
in these, they do not rest till they invent fresh matters which
Ps. 2,1. are not, and, according to the Scripture, imagine a vain
thing; all that they may be constant to their irreligion.
2. Now such endeavours'1 are nothing else than an obvious
token of their defect of reason6, and a copying, as I have said,
of Jewish malignity. For the Jews too, when convicted by the
John 6, Truth, and unable to confront it, used evasions, such as What
30.
sign doest Thou, that we may see and believe Thee ? What dost
TJiou work ? though so many signs were given, that they said
John 11, themselves, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles?
In truth, dead men were raised, lame walked, blind saw afresh,
lepers were cleansed, and the water became wine, and five
loaves satisfied five thousand, and all wondered and wor-
shipped the Lord, confessing that in Him were fulfilled the
prophecies, and that He was God the Son of God ; all but
the Pharisees, who, though the signs shone brighter than the
Johnio, sun, yet complained still, as ignorant men, Why dost Thou,
being a man, make Thyself God? Insensate, and verily
blind in understanding ! they ought contrariwise to have
said, " Why hast Thou, being God, become man ?" for His
works proved Him God, that they might both worship the
c Alexander also calls them chame- but infra, §. 25. lav^j/^ara means
Icons, Socr. i. 6. p. 12. Athanasius more definitely reasonings or argu-
so calls the Meletians, Hist. Arian. mentations.
§. 79. Cyril compares them to u the e u,\oyius ; an allusion, frequent in
leopard which cannot change his spots." Athanasius, to the judicial consequence
that they considered Creeds as yearly have they none." Also Orat. i. §. 35.
covenants ; and de Synod. §. 3. 4. as fin. §. 40. init. §. 62. Orat. ii. §. 7. init.
State Edicts, vid. also §. 14. and passim. Hence he so often calls the Arians
" "What wonder that they fight against " mad" and " deranged;" e. g. " not
their fathers, when they fight against aware how mad their reason is." Orat.
themselves?" §. 37. i. §. 37.
, and so Orat. i. §. 44. init.
and fertile in exceptions.
goodness of the Father, and admire the Son's economy for CHAP.
our sakes. However, this they did not say ; no, nor liked to — * —
witness what He was doing ; or they witnessed indeed, for
this they could not help, but they changed their ground of
complaint again, "Why healest Thou the paralytic, why
makest Thou the born-blind to see, on the sabbath day ?"
But this too was an excuse, and mere murmuring ; for on
other days as well did the Lord heal all manner of sickness. Mat. 4,
and all manner of disease, but they complained still accord-
ing to their wont, and by calling Him Beelzebub, preferred
the suspicion of Atheism', to a recantation of their own
wickedness. And though in such sundry times and diverse
manners the Saviour shewed His Godhead and preached the
Father to all men, nevertheless, as kicking against the pricks,
they contradicted in the language of folly, and this they did,
23.
f or ungodliness, Midruros. Thus
Aetius was called o 0,6109, the ungodly,
de Synod. §. 6 ; and Arius complains
that Alexander had expelled him and
his from Alexandria, u; avfya'rotis uSiov?.
Theodor. Hist. i. 4. "Atheism" and
" Atheist" imply intention, system, and
profession, and are so far too strong a
rendering of the Greek. Since Christ
was God, to deny Him was to deny God.
The force of the term, however, seems to
be, that, whereas the Son had revealed
the a unknown God," and destroyed the
reign of idols, the denial of the Son was
bringing back idolatry and its attendant
spiritual ignorance. Thus in the Orat.
contr. Gent. §. 29. fin. written before
the Arian controversy, he speaks of
" the Greek idolatry as full of all
Atheism" or ungodliness, and contrasts
with it the knowledge of " the Guide
and Framer of the Universe, the Fa-
ther's Word," " that through Him we
may discern His Father, and the Greeks
may know how far they have separated
themselves from the truth." And Orat.
ii. 43. he classes Arians with the Greeks,
who " though they have the name of
God in their mouths, incur the charge
of Atheism, because they know not the
real and true God, the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ." (vid. also Basil in
Eunom. ii. 22.) Shortly afterwards
he gives a further reason for the title,
observing that Arianism was worse than
previous heresies, such as Mauicheism,
inasmuch as the latter denied the Incar-
nation, but it tore from God's substance
His connatural Word, and, as far as
its words went, infringed upon the
perfections and being of the First Cause.
And so ad Ep. JEg. §. 17. fin. he says,
that it alone, beyond other heresies,
ii has been bold against the Godhead
Itself in a mad way, (petvixurigav, vid.
foregoing note,) denying that there is a
Word, and that the Father was always
Father." Elsewhere, he speaks more
generally, as if Arianism introduced
u an Atheism or rather Judaism against
the Scriptures, being next door to Hea-
thenism, so that its disciple cannot be
even named Christian ; for all such
tenets are contrary to the Scriptures;"
and he makes this the reason why the
Nicene Fathers stopped their ears and
condemned it. ad Ep. ./Eg. §. 13. For
the same reason he calls the heathen
a.hot, atheistical or ungodly, ii who are
arraigned of irreligion by Divine Scrip-
ture." Orat. contr. Gent. §. 14. vid.
tftvXuv a&a-r»jT«. §. 46. init. Moreover,
he calls the Arian persecution worse
than the pagan cruelties, and therefore
" a Babylonian Atheism," Ep. Encycl.
§. 5. as not allowing the Catholics the
use of prayer and baptism, with a refer-
ence to Dan. vi. 11, £c. Thus too he
calls Constantius atheist, for his treat-
ment of Hosius ; o3n rov diov $t>$n6i\s o
eifaof. Hist. Arian. 45. Another reason
for the title seems to have lain in the
idolatrous character of Arian worship
on its own shewing, viz. as worshipping
One whom they yet maintained to be a
creature.
B 2
4 Andy like the Jews, have recourse to violence.
ISTICEN. according to the divine proverb, that by finding occasions,
— they might separate themselves from the truth8.
§•2. 3. As then the Jews of that day, for acting thus wickedly and
denying the Lord, were with justice deprived of fheir laws and
of the promise made to their fathers, so the Arians, Judaizing
now, are, in my judgment, in circumstances like those of
Caiaphas and the contemporary Pharisees. For, perceiving
that their heresy is utterly unreasonable, they invent excuses,
" Why was this denned, and not that ?" Yet wonder not if
now they practise thus ; for in no long time they will turn to
John 18, outrage, and next will threaten the band and the captain^.
Forsooth in these their heterodoxy has such consistence as
we see; for denying the Word of God, reason have they
none at all, as is equitable. Aware then of this, I would have
made no reply to their interrogations ; but, since thy friend-
liness1 has asked to know the transactions of the Council,
I have without any delay related at once what then took
place, shewing in few words, how destitute Arianism is of
a religious spirit, and how its very business is to frame
evasions.
8 A reference to Prov. 18, 1. which duced us instead of the deacons of the
runs in the Septuagint, " a man seek- Church?" vid. also §.10. and 45. Orat.
eth occasions, when desirous of separat- ii. §. 43. Ep. Encycl. §. 5. Against
ing himself from friends." the use of violence in religion, vid.
h Apparently an allusion t£ the text Hist. Arian. §. 33. 67. (Hil. ad Const,
in the margin. Elsewhere, he speaks i. 2.) On the other hand, he observes,
of " the chief captain" and " the go- that at Nicsea, "it was not necessity
vernor," with an allusion to Acts 23, which drove the judges to" their decision,
22—24. &c. &c. Hist. Arian. §. 66. fin. " but all vindicated the Truth from de-
vid. also §. 2. Speaking of the Council liberate purpose." ad Ep. JEg. 13.
of Tyre, A.D. 335. he asks, Apol. J ItMurts. vid. also Hist. Arian. §. 45.
contr. Arian. §. 8. " How venture they Orat. ii. §. 4. where Parker maintains
to call that a Council in which a Count without reason that it should be trans-
presided, and an executioner was pre- lated, " external condition." vid. also
sent, and a registrar [or jailer] intro- Theod. Hist. i. 4. init.
CHAP. II.
CONDUCT OF THE ARIANS TOWARDS THE NICENE COUNCIL.
Ignorant as well as irreligious to attempt to reverse an Ecumenical Council ;
proceedings at Nicaea; Eusebians then signed what they now complain of;
on the unanimity of true teachers and the process of tradition ; changes
of the Arians.
1. AND do thou, beloved, consider whether it be not so. If, CHAP.
the devil having sowed their hearts with this perverseness*, —
they feel confidence in their bad inventions, let them defend
themselves against the proofs of heresy which have been ad-
vanced, and then will be the time to find fault, if they can,
with the definition framed against them '. For no one, on
being convicted of murder or adultery, is at liberty after
the trial to arraign the sentence of the judge, why he spoke
in this way and not in thatm. For this does not exculpate the
convict, but rather increases the crime on the score of petu-
lance and audacity. In like manner, let these either prove
that their sentiments are religious, (for they were then
accused and convicted, and their complaints are since, and
s rou ^tafiaXou , the al)u- faith and ignorant in their criticism;
sion is to Matt. 13, 25. and is very and speaks of the Council negativing
frequent in Athan. chiefly with a refer- their formulse, and substituting those
ence to Ar-ianism. He draws it out at which were " sound and ecclesiastical."
length, Orat. ii. §. 34. Elsewhere, he vid. also n. 4.
uses the image for the evil influences m And so St. Leo passim concerning
introduced into the soul upon Adam's the Council of Chalcedon, " Concord
fall, contr. Apoll. i. §. 15. as does S. will be easily established, if the hearts
Irenseus, Heer. iv. 40. n. 3. using it of all concur in that faith which &c. no
of such as lead to backsliding in Chris- discussion being allowed whatever con-
tians, ibid. v. 10. n. 1. Gregory Nyssen, cerning any retractation," Ep. 94. He
of the natural passions and of false calls such an act a " magnum sacrile-
reason misleading them, de An. et gium," Ep. 157. c. 3. " To be seeking
Resurr. p. 640. vid. also Leon. Ep. 156. for what has been disclosed, to retract
c. 2. what has been perfected, to tear up
1 The Council did two things, ana- what has been laid down, (defmita,)
thematize the Arian positions, (at the what is this but to be unthankful for
end of the Creed,) and establish the what we gained ?" Ep. 162. vid. the
true doctrine by the insertion- of the whole of it. He says that the attempt
phrases, " of the substance" and " one is a no mark of a peace-maker but a
in substance," Athan. says that the rebel." Ep. 1G4. c. 1. fin. vid. also Epp.
Arians must not criticise the latter ber 145, and 156, where he says, none can
fore they had cleared themselves of the assail what is once determined, but " aut
former. Thus he says presently, that antichristus aut diabolus." c. 2.
they were at once irreligious in their
6 Equivocations and variations of the Arians.
NicEN.it is just that those who are under a charge should confine
-PEF' themselves to their own defence,) or if they have an unclean
conscience, and are aware of their own irreligion, let them not
complain of what they do not understand, or they will bring
on them a double imputation, of irreligion and of ignorance.
Rather let them investigate the matter in a docile spirit,
and learning what hitherto they have not known, cleanse
their irreligious ears with the spring of truth and the doctrines
i via. of religion1.
?F28 m> 2. Now it happened to the Eusebians in the Nicene Council
Socr. p. as follows : — while they stood out in their irreligion, and at-
x't 3. tempted their fight against Godn, the terms they used were
replete with irreligion; but the assembled Bishops, who were
more than three hundred, mildly and charitably required of
them to explain and defend themselves on religious grounds.
Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were
convicted0, and one differed from another ; then perceiving the
straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by
their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their he-
terodoxy. On this the Bishops, having negatived the terms
they had invented, published against them the sound and eccle-
siastical faith ; and, whereas all subscribed it, the Eusebians
subscribed it also in those very words, of which they are
now complaining, I mean, " of the substance" and " one in
substance," and that " the Son of God is neither creature or
work, nor in the number of things generated, but that the
Word is an offspring from the substance of the Father." And,
what is strange indeed, Eusebius ofCaesarea in Palestine, who
had denied the day before2, but afterwards subscribed, sent to
his Church a letter, saying that this was the Church's faith,
and the tradition of the Fathers ; and made a public profes-
sion that they were before in error, and were rashly contending
against the truth. For though he was ashamed at that time to
r- 0t»(tK%t7v, 0io'p,ct%ei. vid. Acts 5, 39. Eunom. ii. 27. fin. %£ifrap.K%uv. Ep.
23, 9. are of very frequent use in Athan. 236. init. vid. also Cyril. Thesaur. p. 19.
as if gfjfW/utgw, in speaking of the e. p. 24. e. hoftct%ot is used of othei
Arians, vid. infra passim, also avr/^a- heretics, e. g. the Manichees, by Greg
%o'ftivoi TU ffuTvy Ep. Encycl. §. 5. Naz. Orat. 45. §. 8.
And in the beginning of the contro- ° i.e. "convicted themselves," infr
versy, Alexander ap. Socr. i. 6. p. 10. §. 18. nt. tauruv uti xarwyajw, a p
b.c.p. 12. p. 13,Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 729. JEg. §. 6. i. e. by their variations, vid
And so ht^Kos AaWa. Basil, contr. Tit. iii. 11.
An ecumenical Council cannot be reversed. 7
adopt these phrases, and excused himself to the Church in CHAP.
his own way, yet he certainly means to imply all this in his
Epistle, by his not denying the " one in substance," and " of
the substance." And in this way he got into a difficulty ; for
while he was excusing himself, he went on to attack the
Arians, as stating that " the Son was not before His gene-
ration," and thereby hinting at a denial of His existence
before His birth in the flesh. And this Acacius is aware
of also, though he too through fear may pretend otherwise
because of the times and deny the fact. Accordingly I have
subjoined at the end of these remarks the letter of Eusebius,
that thou mayest know from it the inconsiderateness towards
their own doctors, shewn by Christ's enemies, and singularly
by Acacius himself.
3. Are they not then committing a crime, in their very §.4.
thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council ? are
they not in transgression, when they dare to confront that
good definition against Arianism, acknowledged, as it is, by
those who had in the first instance taught them irreligion ? And
supposing, even after subscription, the Eusebians did change
again, and return like dogs to their own vomit of irreligion,
do not the present gainsayers deserve still greater detestation,
because they thus sacrifice1 their souls' liberty to others; and are ' »?•»•<-
willing to take these persons, as masters of their heresy, who "£"
are, as James has said, double-minded men, and unstable in de syn-
all their ways, not having one opinion, but changing to and james
fro, and now recommending certain statements, but soon dis- lj 8'
honouring them, and in turn recommending what just now
they were blaming. But this, as the Shepherd has said, is
" the child of the devil V' and the note of dealers rather
P The party he is writing against is succeeded in the see of Csesarea. He
the Acacian, of whom he does not seem attempted to defend Arianism neither
to have had much distinct knowledge, under the cloak of Semiarianism, nor
He contrasts them again and again in wi th the bold logic of the Anomceans, hut
the passages which follow with the Euse- hy a pretended adherence to Scripture,
bians of the Nicene Council, and says His formula was the S^a/oi».(like,) as the
that he is sure that the ground they Semiarian was the opotouffiov , (like in
take when examined will be found sub- substance,) and the Anomoean, as the
stantially the same as the Eusebian. word signifies, the avo^wav, or unlike,
vid. §. 6. init. el alib. §. 7- init. §. 9. dr. 1 Hernias. Pastor, ii. 9. who is speak -
fin. $. 10. dr. fin. §. 13. init. vert x.a.1 ing immediately, as St. James, of wa-
vvv. §. 18. circ.fin. §. 28,/w. Acacius vering in prayer,
was a pupil of Eusebius's, whom he
8 Mutual agreement ike note of doctors of the Church.
NICEN. than of doctors. For, what our Fathers have delivered, this
— is truly doctrine; and this is truly the token of doctors, to
confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither from
themselves nor from their fathers; whereas they who have
not this character, are not to be called true doctors but evil.
Thus the Greeks, as not witnessing to the same doctrines,
but quarrelling one with another, have no truth of teaching ;
but the holy and veritable heralds of the truth agree together,
not differ. For though they lived in different times, yet they
one and all tend the same way, being prophets of the one
God, and preaching the same Word harmoniously'.
§•5. 4. And thus what Moses taught, that Abraham observed;
and what Abraham observed, that Noe and Enoch acknow-
ledged, discriminating pure for impure, and becoming accept-
able to God. For Abel too in this way witnessed, having
knowledge in the truths which he had learned from Adam,
who himself had learned from that Lord, who said, when He
vid' came at the end of the ages for the abolishment of sin, " I
2, 7. give n° new commandment unto you, but an old command-
ment, which ye have heard from the beginning." Where-
fore also the blessed Apostle Paul, who had learned it from
Him, when describing ecclesiastical functions, forbade that
i Tim. deacons, not to say bishops, should be double-tongued ; and
in his rebuke of the Galatians, he made a broad declaration,
Gal. i, If any one preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye
have received, let him be anathema, as I have said, so say I
again. If even an Angel from heaven should preach unto
you any other Gospel than that ye have received, let him be
anathema. Since then the Apostle thus speaks, let these
men either anathematize the party of Eusebius, at least as
changing round and professing what is contrary to their sub-
scriptions ; or, if they acknowledge that their subscriptions
were good, let them not utter complaints against so great a
Council. But if they do neither the one nor the other, they
are themselves too plainly at the sport of every wind and
surge, and are influenced by opinions, not their own, but
r Thus S. Basil says the same of the Hexaem. i. 2. vid. also Theod. Grsec.
Grecian Sects, " We have not the task Affect, i. p. 707. &c. August. Civ. Dei,
of refuting their tenets, for they suffice xviii. 41. and Vincentius's celebrated
for the overthrow of each other." CommonitoriumjwmMw.
Occasion of the present Epistle. 9
^f others, and being such, are as little worthy of deference CHAP.
now as before, in what they allege. Rather let them cease IL
to carp at what they understand not; lest so it be that not
knowing to discriminate, they at hazard call evil good and
good evil, and think that bitter is sweet and sweet bitter.
Doubtless, they desire that doctrines which have been judged
wrong and have been reprobated should gain the ascend-
ancy, and they make violent efforts to prejudice what was
rightly denned. Nor is there reason on our part for any
further explanation, or answer to their excuses, or for further
resistance on theirs, but for an acquiescence in what the
leaders of their heresy subscribed; for though the subse-
quent change of those Eusebians was suspicious and immoral,
their subscription, when they had the opportunity of at least
some little defence of themselves, is a certain proof of the
irreligion of their doctrine. For they did not subscribe with-
out thereby condemning the heresy, nor did they condemn it,
without being encompassed with difficulty and shame ; so
that to change back again is a proof of their contentious zeal
for irreligion. There is reason then, as I have said, that the
present men should keep quiet ; but since from an extraordi-
nary want of modesty, they hope perhaps to be able to advo-
cate this diabolical8 irreligion better than the others, therefore,
though in my former letter written to thee, I have already
argued at length against them, notwithstanding, come let us
now also examine them, in each of their separate statements,
as their predecessors ; for now not less than then their heresy
shall be shewn to have no soundness in it, but to be from
evil spirits.
8 This is Athan.'s deliberate judg- 5. Another reason of his so accounting
ment. vid. de Sent. Dion. fin. where he them, was their atrocious cruelty to-
says, " Who then will continue to call wards Catholics ; this leads him else-
these men Christians, whose leader is the where to break out. "O new heresy,
devil, and not rather diabolical?" and that has put on the whole devil in ir-
he adds, "not only Christ's foes, %y- religious doctrine and conduct!" Hist.
ffropuxu, but diabolical also." In §.24. Arian. §. 66. also Alexander, " diaboli-
he speaks of Arius's " hatred of the cal," ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 731.
truth." Again, " though the diabolical " satanical," ibid. p. 741. vid. also
men rave," Orat. iii. §. 8. " friends of Socr. i. 9. p. 30. fin. Hilar. contr.
the devil, and his spirits." Ad Ep. ^Eg. Const. 17.
CHAP. III.
THE MEANING OF THE WORD SON AS APPLIED TO OUR LORD.
Two senses of the word, 1. adoptive, 2. substantial; attempts of Arians to
find a third meaning between these; e.g. that our Lord only was created
immediately by God ; Asterius's view ; or that our Lord alone partakes
the Father. The second and true sense ; God begets as He makes, really ;
though His creation and generation not like man's ; His generation inde-
pendent of time ; generation implies an internal, and therefore an eternal,
act in God ; explanation of Prov. 8, 22.
NICEN. 1. THEY say then what the others held and dared to main-
__ ^_tain before them; " Not always Father, always Son; for the
*' Son was not before His generation, but, as others, came to be
from nothing; and in consequence God was not always
Father of the Son ; but, when the Son came to be and was
created, then was God called His Father. For the Word is
a creature and work, and foreign and unlike the Father in
substance; and the Son is neither by nature the Father's
true Word, nor His only and true Wisdom; but being a
creature and one of the works, He is by a strong figure 9 called
Word and Wisdom ; for by the Word which is in God was
He made, as were all things. Wherefore the Son is not true
God1."
2. Now it may serve to make them understand what they are
saying, to ask them first this, what in fact a son is, and of
what is that name significant". In truth, Divine Scripture
This word is no- tained that the word implied a beginning
ticed and protested against by Alex- of existence, they did not dare to say that
ander, Socr. Hist. i. 6. p. 11. a. by the He was Son merely in the sense in which
Semiarians at Ancyra, Epiph. Hser. 73. we are sons, though, as Athan. contends,
n. 5. by Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 23. they necessarily tended to this conclu-
and by Cyril, Dial. ii. p. 432, 3. sion, directly they receded from the
1 vid. ad Ep. JEg. 12. Orat. i. §. 5, Catholic view. Thus Arius said that
6. de Synod. 15, 16. Athanas. seems He was a creature, " but not as one
to have had in mind Socr. i. 6. p. 10, of the creatures." Orat. ii.§. 19. Valens
1 1 , or the like. at Ariminum said the same. Jerom. adv.
u vid. Orat. i. $. 38. The controversy Lucifer. 18. Hilary says, that, not daring
turned on the question what was meant directly to deny that He was God, the
by the word " Son." Though the Arians Arians merely asked ll whether He was
would not allow with the Catholics that a Son." de Trin. viii. 3. Athanasius
our Lord was Son by nature, and main- remarks upon this reluctance to speak
Our Lord's Sonship in not the reward of virtue. 11
acquaints us with a double sense of this word : — one which CHAP.
Moses sets before us in the Law, When thou shalt hearken
to the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep all His command- is? is ;
ments which I command thee this day, to do that which isu> *•
right in the eyes of the Lord thy God, ye shall be children
of the Lord your God; as also in the Gospel, John says,
But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to John i ,
become the sons of God : — and the other sense, that in which
Isaac is son of Abraham, and Jacob of Isaac, and the Patri-
archs of Jacob. Now in which of these two senses do they
understand the Son of God in such fables as the foregoing ?
for I feel sure they will issue in the same irreligious tenet
with the Eusebians.
3. If in the first, which belongs to those who gain the name
by grace from moral improvement, and receive power to
become sons of God, (for this is what their predecessors
said,) then He would seem to differ from us in nothing; no,
nor would He be Only-begotten, as having obtained the title
of Son as others from His virtue. For granting what they say,
that, whereas His qualifications were foreknown ', He therefore i Theod.
received grace from the first, the name, and the glory of the
name, from His very first beginning, still there will be no differ-
ence between Him and those who receive the name upon their
actions, so long as this is the ground on which He as others has
the character of son. For Adam too, though he received grace
from the first, and upon his creation was at once placed in para-
dise, differed in no respect either from Enoch, who was trans-
lated thither after his birth on his pleasing God, or from the
Apostle who likewise was caught up to paradise after his
actions ; nay, not from the thief, who on the ground of his
confession, received a promise that he should be forthwith in
paradise.
out, challenging them to present " the ibid.i. l.Epiphaniustoo,Hser.76.p.949.
heresy naked," de Sent. Dionys. 2. init. seems to say that the elder Arians held
" No one," he says elsewhere, "puts the divine generation in a sense in which
a light under a bushel ; let them shew Aetius did not; that is, they were not
the world their heresy naked." ad Ep. so consistent and definite as he. Athan.
^Eg. 18. vid. ibid. 10. In like manner, goes on to mention some of the attempts
Basil says that (though Arius was really of the Arians to find some theory short
like Eunomius, in faith, contr. Eunom. of orthodoxy, yet short of that extreme
i. 4.) Aetius his master was the first to heresy, on the other hand, which they
teach openly, (<p«»«£a;j) that the Father's felt ashamed to avow,
substance was unlike, aviftoios, the Son's.
12 Nor does it mean that He was created to create others.
NICEN. 4. When thus pressed, they will perhaps make an answer
PEF' which has brought them into trouble many times already ;
* « \ye consider that the Son has this prerogative over others,
and therefore is called Only -begotten, because He alone was
7*y«»« brought to be by God alone, and all other things were created
by God through the SonV Now I wonder who it wasy that
suggested to you so futile and novel an idea as that the
Father alone wrought with His own hand the Son alone, and
that all other things were brought to be by the Son as by an
S/wyot/g-under-worker. If for the toil-sake God was content with
making the Son only, instead of making all things at once,
this is an irreligious thought, especially in those who know
is. 40, the words of Esaias, The everlasting God, the Lord, the
Creator of the ends of the earth, hunyereth not, neither is
weary; there is no searching of His understanding.
Rather it is He who gives strength to the hungry, and
through His Word refreshes the labouring. Again, it is
irreligious to suppose that He disdained, -as if a humble
task, to form the creatures Himself which came after the
Son ; for there is no pride in that God, who goes down with
Jacob into Egypt, and for Abraham's sake corrects Abimelec
because of Sara, and speaks face to face with Moses, himself
a man, and descends upon Mount Sinai, and by His secret
grace fights for the people against Amalec. However, you
Ps. 100, are false in your fact, for we are told, He made us, and not
we ourselves. He it is who through His Word made all
things small and great, and we may not divide the creation,
and say this is the Father's, and this the Son's, but they are
ttttf of one God, who uses His proper Word as a Hand z, and in Him
does all things. As God Himself shews us, when He says,
x This is celebrated as an explana- their heresy is alien, and not from the
tion of the Anomceans. vid. Basil, contr. Fathers" vid. ii. §. 34. and Socr. i. 6.
Eunom. ii.20, 21. though Athan. speaks p. 11. c.
of it as belonging to the elder Arians. z vid. infr. §. 17. Orat. ii. §. 31. 71.
vid. Socr. Hist. i. 6. p. 11. Irenaeus calls the Son and Holy Spirit
y i.e. what is your authority? isitnota the Hands of God. Hser. \\.prcef. vid.
novel, and therefore a wrong doctrine ? also Hilar. de Trin. vii. 22. This image
vid.infr. §. 13.adSerap.i.3. AlsoOrat.i. is in contrast to that of instrument*
§. 8. " "Who ever heard such doctrine? orator, which the Arians would use of
or whence or from whom did they hear the Son, vid. Socr. i. 6. p. 11. as imply -
it? who, iv hen they were under cate- ing He was external to God, whereas
chising, spoke thus to them? If they the word Hand implies His consubstan-
themselves confess that they now hear tialifcy with the Father,
it for the first time, they must arrant that
\or that He alone could otdnrc God's creative Jtand. 13
All these things hath My Hand made; and Paul taught us as CHAP.
he had learned3, that There is one God, from whom all - —
Is 66 2
things f and one Lord Jesus Christ > through whom alliCorS\
tilings. Thus He, always as now, speaks to the sun and it6-
rises, and commands the clouds and it rains upon one place ;
and where it does not rain, it is dried up. And He bids the
earth to bear fruit, and fashions Jeremias in the womb. But
if He now does all this, assuredly at the beginning also He
did not disdain to make all things Himself through the Word ;
for these are but parts of the whole.
5. But let us suppose that the other creatures could not §. g.
endure to be wrought by the absolute Hand of the Ingenerate1,^*™"
and therefore the Son alone was brought into being by
Father alone, and other things by the Son as an underworker^'24*fin*
and assistant, for this is what Asterius the sacrificerb has
written, and Anus has transcribed2 and bequeathed to his^vid.also
own friends, and from that time they use this form of words, ™fr j|*
broken reed as it is, being ignorant, the bewildered men, how Synod.
brittle it is. For if it was impossible for things generated*'
to bear the hand of God, and you hold the Son to be one of
their number, how was He too equal to this formation by
God alone ? and if a Mediator became necessary that things
generated might come to be, and you hold the Son to be
generate, then must there have been some medium before
Him, for His creation ; and that Mediator himself again being
a creature, it follows that he too needed another Mediator for
his own constitution. And though we were to devise another,
we must first devise his Mediator, so that we shall never come
to an end. And thus a Mediator being ever in request, never
will the creation be constituted, because nothing generate, as
you say, can bear the absolute hand of the Ingenerate". And
if, on your perceiving the extravagance of this, you begin to
say that the Son, though a creature, was made capable of
3 (Mt62,v IS/Wxiv. implying the tra- Orat. i. §. 31. ii. §. 24. 28. 37. 40. iii.
ditional nature of the teaching. And §. 2. 60. de Synod. §. 18. 19. He was
so St. Paul himself, 1 Cor. 15, 3. vid. by profession a Sophist, and a pupil of
for an illustration, supr. §. 5. init. also Lucian's. He lapsed in the persecution
note y. of Maximian, and sacrificed, as inti-
b Asterius is one of the most famous mated in the text.
of the elder Arians, and his work in c vid. infr. §. 24. Orat. i. §. 15. fin.
defence of the heresy is frequently ii. §. 29. Epiph. Hser. 76. p. 951.
quoted by Athanasiu*. vid. infr. 20.
l^IftheSononly^rstmade,Heisnotofdifferentnatiirefromothers
NICEN. being made by the Ingenerate, then it follows that other
— ^- things also, though generated, are capable of being wrought
immediately by the Ingenerate; for the Son too is but a
creature in your judgment, as all of them. And accordingly
the generation of the Word is superfluous, according to your
irreligious and futile imagination, God being sufficient for the
immediate formation of all things, and all things generate
being capable of sustaining His absolute hand.
6. These irreligious men then having so little mind amid
their madness, let us see whether this particular sophism be
not even more irrational than the others. Adam was created
alone by God alone through the Word; yet no one would
say that Adam had any prerogative over other men, or was
different from those who came after him, granting that he alone
was made and fashioned by God alone, and we all spring
from Adam, and consist according to succession of the race,
so long as he was fashioned from the earth as others, and at
§. 9. first not being, afterwards came to be. But though we were
to allow some prerogative to the Protoplast as having been
vouchsafed the hand of God, still it must be one of honour
not of nature. For he came of the earth, as other men ; and
the hand which then fashioned Adam, now also and ever is
fashioning and giving entire consistence to those who come
after him. And God Himself declares this to Jeremias, as 1
Jer.i,5. said before; Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew
thee ; and so He says of all, All those things hath My hand
I*. 66, 2. made ; and again by Esaias, Thus saith the Lord, thy
Is. 44, redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am
24< the Lord that maketh all things ; that stretcheth forth the
heavens alone ; that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself.
Ps. 119, And David, knowing this, says in the Psalm, Thy hands have
made me and fashioned me', and He who says in Esaias,
Is. 49,5. TJius saith the Lord who formed Me from the womb to be
His servant, signifies the same. Therefore, in respect of
nature, he differs nothing from us though he precede us in
time, so long as we all consist and are created by the same
hand. If then these be your thoughts, O Arians, about
the Son of God too, that thus He subsists and came to be,
then in your judgment He will differ nothing on the score of
nature from others, so long as He too was not, and came to be,
His Sonship does not mean that He only partakes the Father. 15
and the name was by grace united to Him in His creation CHAP.
for His virtue's sake. For He Himself is one of those, from IIL
what you say, of whom the Spirit says in the Psalms, He Ps-33,9.
spake the word, and they were made ; He commanded, and
they u-ere created. If so, who was it to whom God gave
command d for the Son's creation ? for a Word there must be to
whom God gave command, and in whom the works are
created; but ye have no other to shew than the Word ye
deny, unless indeed you should devise again some new
notion.
7. " Yes," they will say, " we have another ;" (which indeed
I have formerly heard the Eusebians use,) " on this score do
we consider that the Son of God has a prerogative over
others, and is called Only-begotten, because He alone par-
takes the Father, and all other things partake the Son."
Thus they weaiy themselves in changing and varying their
professions, like so many hues ; however, this shall not save ad
them from an exposure, as men who speak words to no pur- Se™P-
pose out of the earth, and wallow as in the mire of their own
devices. For If He were called God's Son, and we the §.10.
Son's sons, their fiction were plausible ; but if we too are said
to be sons of that God, of whom He is Son, then we too
partake the Father6, who says, / have begotten and exalted Is. 1,2.
children. For if we did not partake Him, He had not
said, / have begotten ; but if He Himself begat us, no other
than He is our Father f. And, as before, it matters not,
whether the Son has something more and was made first, but
d In like manner, "Men were made vid. de Synod. §. 51. contr. Gent. 46.
through the Word, when the Father fin. Hence St. Austin says, " As the
Himself willed." Orat. i. 63. ' The Father has life in Himself, so hath He
"Word forms matter as injoined by, given also to the Son to have life in
and ministering to, God." ^efrurrt- Himself, not by participating, but in
fttvtf xa,} Ixtu^yuv. ibid. ii. $. 22. contr. Himself. For we have not life in our-
Gent. 46. selves, but in our God. But that Fa-
e His argument is, that if the Son ther, who has life in Himself, begat a
5?, but partook the Father in the sense in Son such, as to have life in Himself,
which we partake the Son, then the not to become partaker of life, but to be
.Son would not impart to us the Father, Himself life; and of that life to make
jbut Himself, and would be a separat- us partakers." Serm. 127. de Verb.
Ping as well as uniting medium between Evang. 9.
the Father and us ; whereas He brings f " To say God is wholly par-
us so near to the Father, that we are taken, is the same as saying that God
the Father's children, not His, and begets." Orat. i. §. 16. And in like
therefore He must be Himself one with manner, our inferior participation in-
the Father, or the Father must be in Him volves such sonship as is vouchsafed
with an incomprehensible completeness, to us.
16 No sense of Sonship can be maintained but 11te Catholic*
NTCEN.WC something less, and were made afterwards, so long as we
_Jl£l all partake, and are called sons, of the same Father g. For
the more or less does not indicate a different nature ; but
attaches to each according to the practice of virtue ; and one
is placed over ten cities, another over five ; and some sit on
twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel; and others
Mat. 25, hear the words, Come, ye blessed of My Father, and, Well
ib. 5 32. done, good and faithful servant. With such ideas, how-
ever, no wonder they imagine that of such a Son God was
not always Father, and such a Son was not always in being,
but was generated from nothing as a creature, and was not
before His generation ; for such an one is other than the
True Son of God.
8. But to persist in such teaching does not consist with
piety h, for it is rather the tone of thought of Sadducees and
Samosatene ! ; it remains then to say that the Son of God is
so called according to the other sense, in which Isaac
was son of Abraham ; for what is naturally begotten from any
one and does not accrue to him from without, that in the
nature of things is a son, and that is what the name
u- implies1*. Is then the Son's generation one of human1 af-
£ And so in Orat. ii. §. 19 — 22. was that our Lord became the Son by
" Though the Son surpassed other things #£oxoxri, or growth in holiness, (vid.
on a comparison, yet He were equally Luke 2, 52. T'g«Ex«a'r«.) "advancing as
a creature with them ; for even in those a man," Orat. iii. §. 51. Or he may be
things which are of a created nature, alluding to his doctrine of our Lord's
we may find some things surpassing predestination, referred to supr. $. 6.
others. Star, for instance, differs dr. fin. for Paul spoke of Him as " God
from star in glory, yet it does not fol- predestined before ages, but from Mary
low that some are sovereign, and others receiving the origin of His existence."
serve, &c." ii. §. 20. And so Gregory contr. Apoll. i. 20.
Nyssen contr. Eunom. iii. p. 132. D. k The force lies in the word <f>vrti,
Epiph. Hser. 76. p. 970. "naturally, "which the Council express-
h i. e. since it is impossible they ed still more definitely by "substance."
can persist in evasions so manifest as Thus Cyril says, " the term ' Son' de-
these, nothing is left but to take the notes the substantial origin from the Fa-
other sense of the word, ther." Dial. 5. p. 573. And Gregory
1 Paul of Samosata is called Samo- Nyssen, " the title ' Son' does not sim-
satene, as John of Damascus Damas- ply express the being from another,"
cene, from the frequent adoption of the (vid. infra, §. 19.) but relationship ac-
names Paul and John. Hence also cording to nature, contr. Eunom. ii.
John Chrysostom, Peter Chrysologus, p. 91. Again St. Basil says, that Father
John Philoponus. Paul was Bishop is " a term of relationship," elxnuirnas .
of Antioch in the middle of, the third contr. Eunom. ii. 24. init. And hence
century, and was deposed for a sort of he remarks, that we too are properly,
Sabellianism. He was the friend of Kugius, sons of God, as becoming related
Lucian, from whose school the principal to Him through works of the Spirit.
Arians issued. His prominent tenet, ii. 23. So also Cyril, loc. oil. Else-
to which Athan. seems here to allude, where, St. Basil defines father u one
Divine generation is not as human. 17
fection ? (for this perhaps, as their predecessors', they too CHAP.
will be ready to object in their ignorance ;) — in no wise ; for '—
God is not as man, nor man as God. Men are created
of matter, and that passible l ; but God is immaterial and }*»tw
incorporeal. And if so be the same terms are used of God
and man in divine Scripture, yet the clear-sighted, as Paul
injoins, will study it, and thereby discriminate, and dispose
of what is written according to the nature of each subject,
and avoid any confusion of sense, so as neither to conceive
of the things of God in a human way, nor to ascribe the
things of man to God81. For this were to mix wine with
water2, and to place upon the altar strange fire with that2vid.
, . , . ,. . Orar.iii.
which is divine. §. 35.
9. For God creates, and to create is also ascribed to men ; §. 11.
and God has being3, and men are said to be, having received 3 «» IM.
from God this gift also. Yet does God create as men do ?
or is His being as man's being? Perish the thought; we
understand the terms in one sense of God, and in another of
men. For God creates, in that He calls what is not into
being, needing nothing thereunto ; but men work some
existing material, first praying, and so gaining the wit to
make, from that God who has framed all tilings by His proper
Word. And again men, being incapable of self-existence,
are inclosed in place, and consist in the Word of God ; but
who gives to another the origin of bring and wishes to convey by it a religious
according to a nature like his own;" sense." vid. also $. 21. He says, that
and a son " one who possesses the Catholics are able to " speak freely,"
origin of being from another by gene- or to expatiate, frapfvffiet£eftifaj " out
ration." contr. Eun. ii. 22. On the of Divine Scripture." Orat. i. $. 9. vid.
other hand, the Arians at the first de- de Sent. Dionys. $. 20. init. Again:
nied that " by nature there was any " The devil spoke from Scripture, but
Son of God." Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 732. was silenced by the Saviour; Paul
1 vid. Eusebius, in his Letter sub- spoke from profane writers, yet, being
joined : also Socr. Hist. i. 8. Epiphan. a saint, he has a religious meaning."
Hser. 69. n. 8. and 15. de Syn. §. 39. also ad Ep. jEg. 8.
m One of the characteristic points in Again, speaking of the apparent con-
Athanasius is his constant attention to trariety between two Councils, " It
the sense of doctrine, or the meaning were unseemly to make the one conflict
of writers, in preference to the words with the other, for all their members
used. Thus he scarcely uses the sym- are fathers ; and it were profane to de-
bol iftoovffior, one in substance, through- cide that these spoke well and those ill,
out his Orations, and in the de Synod, for all of them have slept in Christ."
acknowledges the Semiarians as bre- §. 43. also §. 47. Again: " Not the
thren. Hence infr. §. 18. he says, that phrase, but the meaning and the reli-
orthodox doctrine "is revered by all, gious life, is the recommendation of the
though expressed in strange language, faithful." ad Ep. JEg. §. 9.
provided the speaker means religiously,
18 An Cod creates, so He begets, incomprehensibly.
NICEN. God is self-existent, inclosing all things, and inclosed by
— none ; within all according to His own goodness and power,
yet without all in His proper nature n. As then men create
not as God creates, as their being is not such as God's
being, so men's generation is in one way, and the Son is
from the Father in another0. For the offspring of men are
portions of their fathers, since the very nature of bodies is
not uncompounded, but transitive p, and composed of parts ;
1 i^/t-and men lose their substance1 in begetting, and again they
*"" gain substance from the accession of food. And on this
account men in their time become fathers of many children ;
» Via. also Incarn. $. 17. This
contrast is not commonly found in
ecclesiastical writers, who are used
to say that God is present every-
where, in substance as well as by ener-
gy or power. S. Clement, however,
expresses himself still more strongly in
the same way, " In substance far off,
(for how can the generate come close
to the Ingenerate ?) but most close in
power, in which the universe is embo-
somed." Strom. 2. circ. init. but the
parenthesis explains his meaning, vid.
Cyril. Thesaur. 6. p. 44. The common
doctrine of the Fathers is, that God is
present every where in substance, vid.
Petav. de Deo, iii. 8. and 9. It may
be remarked, that S. Clement continues
" neither inclosing nor inclosed."
0 In Almighty God is the perfection
and first pattern of what is seen in sha-
dow in human nature, according to the
imperfection of the subject matter ; and
this remark applies, as to creation, so to
generation. Athanasius is led to state
this more distinctly in another connec-
tion in Orat. i. §. 21. fin. " It belongs
to the Godhead alone, that the Father is
pi'operly (jcvtfug) Father, and tlie Son
proper/// (xvtfut) Son; and in Them
and Them only does it hold that the
Father i.s ever Father, and the Son ever
Son." Accordingly he proceeds, short-
ly afterwards, as in the text, to argue,
" [The heretics] ought in creation also to
supply God with materials, and so to
deny Him to be Creator ; but if the bare
idea of God transcends such thoughts,
and a man believes that He is in being,
not as we are, and yet in being, as God,
and that He creates not as man creates,
but yet creates as God, therefore He
begets also not as men beget, but
begets as God. For God does not
make men His pattern, but rather we
men, for that God is properly and alone
truly Father of His Son, are also called
fathers of our own children, for ' of
Him is every fatherhood in heaven
and on earth named.' §. 23. The Se-
mi arians at Ancyra quote the same
text for the same doctrine. Epiphan.
Hser. 73. 5. As do Cyril, in Joan,
iii. p. 24. Thesaur. 32. p. 281. and Da-
mascene de Fid. Orth. i. 8. The same
parallel, as existing between creation
and generation, is insisted on by Isidor.
Pel. Ep. iii. 355. Basil. contr.Eun. iv. p.
280. A. Cyril Thesaur. 6. p. 43. Epiph.
Hser. 69. 36. and Gregor. Naz. Orat.
20. 9. who observes that God creates
with a, word, Ps. 148, 5. which evidently
transcends human creations. Theodoras
Abucara with the same object, draws
out the parallel of life, £&»»}, as Athan.
that of being, tivett. Opusc. iii. p. 420 —
422.
P vid. de Synod. §. 51. Orat. i. §.
15. 16. ptvfr*. vid. Orat. i. §. 28.
Bas. in. Eun. ii. 23. fan. Bas. in Eun.
ii. 6. Greg. Naz. Orat. 28. 22. Vid. contr.
Gentes, §. 41. where Athan. without
reference to the Arian controversy, draws
out the contrast between the Godhead
and human nature. " The nature of
things generated, as having its subsist-
ence from nothing, is of a transitive
(ptvfrtii and feeble and mortal sort,
considered by itself; seeing then that it
was transitive and dissoluble, lest this
should take place, and it should be re-
solved into its original nothing, God go-
verns and sustains it all, by His own
Word, who is Himself God," and who,
as he proceeds, §. 42. " remaining Him-
self immoveable with the Father, moves
all things in His own consistence, as
each may seem fit to His Father."
Divine generation is not material, but spiritual. 19
but God, being without parts, is Father of the Son without CHAP.
partition or passion ; for there is neither effluence ! q of the -
Immaterial, nor accession from without, as among men ; and
being uncompounded in nature, He is Father of One Only
Son. This is why He is Only-begotten, and alone in the
Father's bosom, and alone is acknowledged by the Father to
be from Him, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am Mat. 3,
well pleased. And He too is the Father's Word, from which
may be understood the impassible and impartitive nature of
the Father, in that not even a human word is begotten with
passion or partition, much less the Word of God r. Where-
fore also He sits, as Word, at the Father's right hand ; for
where the Father is, there also is His Word; but we, as
His works, stand in judgment before Him ; and He is
adorable, because He is Son of the adorable Father, but we
adore, confessing Him Lord and God, because we are
creatures and other than He.
10. The case being thus, let who will among them consider §. 12.
the matter, so that one may abash them by the following ques-
tion; Is it right to say that what is God's offspring and proper
to Him is out of nothing ? or is it reasonable in the very idea,
that what is from God has accrued to Him, that a man should
dare to say that the Son was not always ? For in this again
the generation of the Son exceeds and transcends the
thoughts of man, that we become fathers of our own children
in time, since we ourselves first were not and then came into
being; but God, in that He ever is, is ever Father of the Son*.
1 S. Cyril, Dial. iv. init. p. 505, E. Wisdom is one, substantial and sub-
speaks of the $(>v\\ou[*.lvn etvoppori ; and sisting." Athan. Orat. iv. 1. fin.
disclaims it, Thesaur. 6. p. 43. Atha- 8 " Man," says S. Cyril, inasmuch
nasius disclaims it, Expos. §. 1. Orat. i. as He had a beginning of being, also
§. 21. So does Alexander, ap. Theod. has of necessity a beginning of beget-
Hist. i. 3. p. 743. On the other hand, ting, as what is from Him is a thing
Athanasius quotes it in a passage which generate, but if God's substance
he adduces from Theognostus, infra, transcend time, or origin, or interval,
§. 25. and from Dionysius, de Sent. D. His generation too will transcend these ;
§.23.andOrigenusesit, Periarchon,i.2. nor does it deprive the Divine Nature of
It is derived from Wisd. vii. 25. the power of generating, that it doth
r The title " Word" implies the in- not this in time. For other than hu-
effable mode of the Son's generation, as man is the manner of divine generation ,•
distinct from material parallels, vid. and together with God's existing is His
Gregory Nyssen, contr. Eunom. iii. generating implied, and the Son was in
r!07. Chrysostom in Joan. Horn. 2. Him by generation, nor did His gene-
4. Cyril Alex. Thesaur. 5. p. 37. ration precede His existence, but He
Also it implies that there is but One was always, and that by generation."
Son. vid. infra, §. 16. " As the Origin Thesaur. v. p. 35.
is one substance, so its Word and
c 2
20 As is symbolized by the words Light, Fountain, Life, fyc.
NICEN. And the generation of mankind is brought home to us from
PEF' things that are parallel ; but, since no one knoweth the Son but
ar?**11' the Father, and no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and
he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him, therefore the sacred
writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a
Heb. i, certain image from things visible, saying, Who is the brightness
ps> 36 of His glory, and the Expression of His Person ; and again, For
9- ' with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see
Bar. 3, light ; and when the Word chides Israel, He says, Thou hast
forsaken the Fountain of wisdom ; and this Fountain it is
Jer. 2, which says, They have forsaken Me the fountain of living
^vid Ep watt*'8'- And mean indeed and very dim is the illustration1
ad compared with what we desiderate; but yet it is possible
from it to understand something above man's nature, instead
669.a.b.0f thinking the Son's generation to be on a level with ours.
For who can even imagine that the radiance of light ever was
not, so that he should dare to say that the Son was not always,
or that the Son was not before His generation ? or who is
capable of separating the radiance from the sun, or to conceive
of the fountain as ever void of life, that he should madly say,
John 14," The Son is from nothing," who says, / am the life, or
ib.v. 9. " alien to the Father's substance," who says, He that hath
seen Me, hath seen the Father ? for the sacred writers
wishing us thus to understand, have given these illustrations ;
and it is indecent and most irreligious, when Scripture con-
tains such images, to form ideas concerning our Lord from
others which are neither in Scripture, nor have any religious
bearing.
§.13. 11. Therefore let them tell us, from what teacher or by what
tradition they derived these notions concerning the Saviour ?
Prov. s, " We have read," they will say, " in the Proverbs, The Lord
2 vid. hath created Me a beginning of His ways unto His works * ;
Srou h'^s ^e Eusebians used to insist on", and you write me word,
out.
* vid. infra passim. All these titles, is neither creature, nor part of Him
' Word, Wisdom, Light," &c. serve whose Word He is, nor an offspring
to guard the title "Son" from any passibly begotten." Orat. i. §. 28.
notions of parts or dimensions, e. g. " Eusebius of Nicomedia quotes it in
He is not composed of parts, but his Letter to Paulinus, ap. Theodor.
being impassible and single, He is im- Hist. i. 5. And Eusebius of Ctesarea
passibly and indivisibly Father of the Demonstr. Evang. v. 1.
Son... for... the Word and Wisdom
Creation is an external act, generation an internal. 21
that the present men also, though overthrown and confuted CHAP.
by an abundance of arguments, still were putting about in
every quarter this passage, and saying that the Son was one
of the creatures, and reckoning Him with things generated1.
But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this
passage also ; for it has a religious and very orthodox sense,
which, had they understood, they would not have blasphemed
the Lord of glory. For on comparing what has been above
stated with this passage, they will find a great difference between
them x. For what man of right understanding does not perceive,
that what are created and made are external to the maker ;
but the Son, as the foregoing argument has shewn, exists not
externally, but from the Father who begat Him ? for man too
both builds a house and begets a son, and no one would
mismatch things, and say that the house or the ship were
begotten by the builder2, but the Son was created and made by * Scrap.
him ; nor again that the house was an image of the maker, "'
but the Son unlike Him who begat Him ; but rather he will
confess that the Son is an image of the Father, but the house
a work of art, unless his mind be disordered, and he beside
himself. Plainly, divine Scripture, which knows better than
any the nature of every thing, says through Moses, of the
creatures, In the beginning God created the heaven and
earth; but of the Son it introduces the Father Himself1'
saying, I have begotten Thee from the womb before thePs.no,
morning star ; and again, Thou art My Son, this day have p'St 2 7.
/ begotten TJtee. And the Lord says of Himself in the
Proverbs, Before all the hills He begets Me ; and concerning Prov. 8,
things generated and created John speaks, All things
made by Him; but preaching of the Lord, he says, The3-
Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He
hath declared Him. If then son, therefore not creature;
if creature, not son ; for great is the difference between
them, and son and creature cannot be the same, unless his
substance be considered to be at once from God, and external
to God.
* i. e. " Granting that the primd His creation, that we must interpret
/acz> impression of this text is in favour this text by them. It cannot mean
of our Lord's being a creature, yet so that our Lord was simply created, be-
many arguments have been already cause we have already shewn that He
brought, and may be added, against is not external to His Father."
•22 The Son teas created when He came in our flesh.
NICEN. 12. " Has then the passage no meaning ?" for this, like a
PEF- swarm of gnats, they are droning about us y. No surely, it is not
§' ^' without meaning, but has a very apposite one; for it is true
to say that the Son was created too, but this took place when
He became man ; for creation belongs to man. And any one
may find this sense duly given in the divine oracles, who,
instead of accounting their study a secondary matter, in-
vestigates the time and characters2, and the object, and thus
studies and ponders what he reads. Now as to the season
spoken of, he will find for certain that, whereas the Lord
1 «;*»«» always is, at length in fulness of the ages1 He became man ;
and whereas He is Son of God, He became Son of man also.
And as to the object he will understand, that, wishing to
annul our death, He took on Himself a body from the Virgin
Mary ; that by offering this unto the Father a sacrifice for
all, He might deliver us all, who by fear of death were all
Heb. 2, our life through subject to bondage. And as to the character,
it is indeed the Saviour's, but is said of Him when He took
Prov. 8, a body and said, The Lord has created Me a beginning of
His ways unto His works. For as it properly belongs to
God's Son to be everlasting, and in the Father's bosom, so
on His becoming man, the words befitted Him, TJie Lord
created Me. For then it is said of Him, and He hungered,
and He thirsted, and He asked where Lazarus lay, and
ssent.D. He suffered, and He rose again 2. And as, when we hear
ai.$.ra of Him as Lord and God and true Light, we understand
26-41. Him as being from the Father, so on hearing, The Lord
created, and Servant, and He suffered,we shall justly ascribe
this, not to the Godhead, for it is irrelevant, but we must
interpret it by that flesh which He bore for our sakes ; for to
it these things are proper, and this flesh was none other's than
the Word's. And if we wish to know the object attained by this,
X rtpji«fjS««m. Soin^adAfros.5.init. meaning of the word, contr. Apoll. ii.
And Sent. D.§. 19. *tgiie%'*rui vipfioft- 2. and 10; though it there approxi-
£«<""«?. And Gregory Nyssen, contr. mates (even in phrase, ov* i» J/«/ei<ri<
Eon. vin. p. 234. C. us &» rov; a<rti£ov{ ^ayu-ruv) to its ecclesiastical use, which
T«<f TX«T«y/xa7f xKM.^avtiti; vi^o/x,- seems to have been later. Yet persona
0wim. vid. also vtei't^ovrat ut ol x«v occurs in Tertull. in Prax. 27; it may
'*<" Or^- '»• fin- be questioned, however, whether in any
• *toff*>*«.. vid. Orat. i. §. 54. ii. §. 8. genuine Greek treatise till the Apolli-
bent. i). 4. not persons, lout characters; narians.
which must also be considered the
By the Word becoming man, men become gods. 23
we shall find it to be as follows; that the Word was made flesh CHAP.
in order to offer up this body for all, and that we, partaking -
of His Spirit, might be made gods, a gift which we could not
otherwise have gained than by His clothing Himself in our
created body1; for hence we derive our name of " men ofl°ratii-
God" and " men in Christ." But as we, by receiving the
Spirit, do not lose our own proper substance, so the Lord,
when made man for us, and bearing a body, was no less God ;
for He was not lessened by the envelopment of the body,
but rather deified it and rendered it immortal a.
a " remaining Himself unalterable, nomy and presence in the flesh." Orat.
and not changed by Hi* human eco- ii. 6.
CHAP. IV.
PROOF OF THE CATHOLIC SENSE OF THE WORD SON.
Power, Word or Reason, and Wisdom, the names of the Son, imply
eternity; as well as the Father's title of Fountain. The Arians reply
that these do not formally belong to the essence of the Son, but are
names given Him ; that God has many words, powers, &c. Why there
is but one Son and Word, &c. All the titles of the Son coincide in Him.
NICEN. 1. THIS then is quite enough to expose the infamy of the
PEF- Arian heresy ; for, as the Lord has granted, out of their own
§• 15. wor(]s is irreligion brought home to themb. But come now
and let us on our part act on the offensive, and call on them
for an answer ; for now is fair time, when their own ground
has failed them, to question them on ours ; perhaps it may
ahash the perverse, and disclose to them whence they have fallen.
We have learned from divine Scripture, that the Son of God,
as was said above, is the very Word and Wisdom of the
i Cor. i, Father. For the Apostle says, Christ the power of God and
John 1 Me Wisdom of God; and John after saying, And the Word
14. was made flesh, at once adds, And we have seen His glory,
the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of graee
and truth; so that, the Word being the Only-begotten Son,
in this Word and in Wisdom heaven and earth and all that is
therein were made. And of this Wisdom that God is Foun-
1 vid. tain we have learned from1 Baruch, by Israel's being charged
§.U12. wfth having forsaken the Fountain of Wisdom. If then they
deny Scripture, they are at once aliens to their name, and
b The main argument of the Arians begot the Son, he that was begotten
was that our Lord was a Son, and there- had a beginning of existence ; and from
fore was not eternal, but of a substance this it is plain that once the Son was
which had a beginning. With this not; and it follows of necessity that He
Arius started in his dispute with Alex- had His subsistence out of nothing."
ander. "Arius, a man not without Socr. i. 5. Accordingly, Athanasius
dialectic skill, thinking that the Bishop says, " Having argued with them as to
was introducing the doctrine of Sabel- the meaning of their own selected term,
lius the Libyan, out of contention fell 'Son,' let us go on to others, which on
off into the opinion diametrically oppo- the very face make for us, such as
site, and he says, ' If the Father Word, Wisdom, &c."
To deny God's Wisdom, is to deny that God is wise. 25
may fitly be called of all men atheists1, and Christ's enemies, CHAP.
for they have brought upon themselves these names. But if } — : — '—
they agree with us that the sayings of Scripture are divinely supr.p.3.
inspired, let them dare to say openly what they think innotef-
secret, that God was once wordless and wisdomlessc; and let
them in their madness2 say, " There was once when He was2 vid.
not," and, " before His generation, Christ was notd ;" and ,^ve>
again let them declare that the Fountain begat not Wisdom
from Itself, but acquired It from without, till they have the
daring to say, " The Son came of nothing ;" whence it will
follow that there is no longer a Fountain, but a sort of
pool, as if receiving water from without, and usurping the
name of Fountain e.
2. How full of irreligion this is, I consider none can doubt §.16.
who has ever so little understanding. But since they whisper
something about Word and Wisdom, being only names
of the Son f, we must ask then, If these are only names of
vid. infra, §. 26.
This is a frequent argument in the con-
troversy, viz. that to deprive the Father
of His Son or substantial Word, (Kayos ,)
is as great a sacrilege as to deny His
Reason, Xoya;, from which the Son re-
ceives His name. Thus Orat. i. §. 14. fin.
Athan. says, " imputing to God's na-
ture an absence of His Word, (aXay/av
or irrationality,) they are mo.«t irre-
ligious." vid. §. 19. fin. 24. Else-
where, he says, " Is a man not mad
himself, who even entertains the thought
that God is word-less and wisdom-less P
for such illustrations and such images
Scripture hath proposed, that, consider-
ing the inability of human nature to
comprehend concerning God, we might
even from these, however poorly and
dimly, discern as far as is attainable."
Orat. ii. 32. vid. also iii. 63. iv. 14.
Scrap, ii. 2.
d These were among the original
positions of the Arians; the former is
mentioned by Socrates, vid. note b. the
latter is one of those specified in the
Nicene Anathema.
e And so trtjyti fagd. Serap. ii. 2.
Orat. i. §. 14. fin. also ii. §. 2. where
Athanasius speaks as if those who deny
that Almighty God is Father, cannot
really believe in Him as a Creator.
" If He be not a Son, let Him be called
a work, and let God be called, not
Father, but Framer only and Creator,
and not of a generative nature. But if
the divine substance be not fruitful,
(x«£rayfl»fff,) but barren, as they say,
as a light which enlightens not, and a
dry fountain, are they not ashamed to
maintain that He possesses the crea-
tive energy?" vid. also snjyjj SioT-nrot.
Pseudo-Dion. Div. Nom. c. 2. irnyn i»
*vyr,s, of the Son. Epiphan. Ancor. 19.
And Cyril, " If thou take from God His
being Father, thou wilt deny the gene-
rative power (*«£<ra'y«»a») of the divine
nature, so that It no longer is perfect.
This then is a token of its perfection,
and the Son who went forth from
Him apart from time, is a pledge
(fftyoKytt) to the Father that He is per-
fect." Thesaur. p. 37.
f Arius said, as the Eunomians after
him, that the Son was not really, but
only called, Word and Wisdom, which
were simply attributes of God, and the
prototypes of the Son. vid. Socr. i. 6.
p. 11. Theod. Hist. 1,3. p. 731. Athan.
asks, Is the Son then more than wis-
dom ? if on the other hand He be less,
still He must be so called because of
some gift or quality in Him, analogous
to wisdom, or of the nature of wisdom,
and admitting of improvement and
growth. But this was the notorious
doctrine of Christ's -rgoxeT* or advance-
ment. " I am in wonder," he says,
2(5 'Hie Arian objection that God had many wordx.
NicEN.the Son, He must be something else beside them. And if
PEF> He is higher than the names, it is not lawful from the lesser to
denote the higher ; but if He be less than the names, yet He
surely must have in Him the principle of this more honour-
able appellation ; and this implies His advance, which is an
irreligion equal to any thing that has gone before. For He
who is in the Father, and in whom also the Father is, who says,
Johnio, / and the Father are one, whom He that hath seen, hath seen
*frir,,y. the Father, to say that He has been improved * by any thing
external, is the extreme of madness.
3. However, when they are beaten hence, and like the Euse-
bians are in these great straits, then they have this remaining
plea, which Arius too in ballads, and in his own Thalia2,
fabled, as a new difficulty : " Many words speaketh God ;
which then of these are we to call Son and Word, Only-
begotten of the Father6 ?" Insensate, and any thing but Chris-
fffai
* vid.
Syn.
§. 16.
Orat. ii. §. 37. " how, whereas God is
one, these men introduce after their
private notions, many images, and wis-
doms, and words, and say that the Fa-
ther's proper and natural Word is other
than the Son, by whom He even made
the Son, and that the real Son is but
notionally called Word, as vine, and
way, and door, and tree of life ; and
Wisdom also only in name, — the proper
and true Wisdom of the Father, which
co-exists with Him without generation,
being other than the Son, by which He
even made the Son, and named Him
Wisdom as partaking of it." He goes
on to observe in §. 38. that to be con-
sistent they should explain away not
only word, wisdom, &c. but the title of
being as applied to Him; " and then
what is He ? for He is none of these
Himself, if they are but His names, and
He has but a semblance of being, and
is decorated with these names by us."
? As the Arians took the title Son in
that part of its earthly sense in which
it did not apply to our Lord, so they
misinterpreted the title Word also;
which denoted the Son's immateriality
and indivisible presence in the Father,
but did not express His perfection,
vid. Orat. ii. §. 34—36. which precedes
the passage quoted in the last note.
" As our word is proper to us and from
us, and not a work external to us, so
also the Word of God is proper to Him
and from Him, and is not made, yet not
as the tvord of man , else one must con-
sider God as man. Men have many
words, and after those many, not any
one of them all; for the speaker lias
ceased, and thereupon his word fails.
But God's Word is one and the same,
and, as it is written, " remaineth for
ever," not changed, not first one and
then another, but existing the same
always. For it behoved that God being
one, one should be His Image, one His
Word, one His Wisdom." §. 36. vid.
contr. Gent. 41. ad Ep. zEg. 16. Epiph.
Haer. 65. 3. Nyss. in Eun. xii. p. 349.
Origen, (in a passage, however, of ques-
tionable doctrine,) says, " As there are
gods many, but to us one God the Father,
and many lords, but to us one Lord
Jesus Christ, so then are many words,
but we pray that in us may exist the
Word that was in the beginning, with
God, and God." in Joan. torn. ii. 3.
" Many things, it is acknowledged, does»
the Father speak to the Son," say the
Serniarians at Ancyra, "but the words
which God speaks to the Son, are not
sons. They are not substances of God,
but vocal energies ; but the Son, though
a Word, is not such, but, being a Son,
is a substance." Epiph. Haer. 73. 12.
The Serniarians are speaking against
Sabellianism, which took the same
ground here as Arianism ; so did the
heresy of Samosatene, who, according to
If oar Lord is the Word, He is the Son and the Image. 27
tians h ! for first, on using such language about God, they CHAP.
conceive of Him almost as a man, speaking and reversing His '—
first words by His second, just as if one Word from God were
not sufficient for the framing of all things at the Father's will,
and for His providential care of all. For His speaking many
words would argue a feebleness in them all, each needing the
sendee of the other. But that God should have one Word,
which is the true doctrine, both shews the power of God, and
the perfection of the Word that is from Him, and the religious
understanding of them who thus believe.
4. O that they would consent to confess the truth from this §.17.
their own statement ! for if they once grant that God produces
words, they plainly know Him to be a Father ; and acknowledg-
ing this, let them consider that, while they are loth to ascribe
one Word to God, they are imagining that He is Father of many ;
and while they are loth to say that there is no Word of God at
all, yet they do not confess that He is the Son of God, — which
is ignorance of the truth, and inexperience in divine Scripture.
For if God is altogether Father of the Word, wherefore is not He
a Son that is begotten ? And again, Son of God who should
be, but His Word ? For there are not many Words, or each
would be imperfect, but one is the Word, that He only may
be perfect, and because, God being one, His image too must
be one, which is the Son. For the Son of God, as may be
learnt from the divine oracles themselves, is Himself the Word
of God, and the Wisdom, and the Image, and the Hand, and
the Power ; for God's offspring is one, and of the generation
from the Father these titles are tokens'. For if you say the
Epiphanius, considered our Lord, the ' All the titles of the Son of God are
internal Word, or thought. Hser. 65. consistent with each other, and various-
The term word in this inferior sense is ly represent one and the same Person,
often in Greek pvpa. Epiph. supr. and " Son" and " "Word," denote Hisderiv-
Cyril. de Incarn. Unig. init. p. 6/9. ation ; "Word" and "Image," His
h "If they understood and acknow- Similitude; "Word" and "Wisdom,"
ledged the characteristic idea (%U£KX- His immateriality ; " Wisdom" and
TjJ^a) of Christianity,they would not have " Hand", His co-existence. " If He
said that the Lord of glory was a crea- is not Son, neither is He Image."
ture." ad Serap. ii. 7. In Orat. i. §. 2. Orat. ii. §. 2. " How is there Word
he says, Arians are not Christians be- and Wisdom, unless there he a proper
cause they are Arians, for Christians offspring of His substance? ii. §. 22.
are called, not from Arius, but from vid. also Orat. i. §. 20, 21. and at great
Christ, who is their only Master, vid. length Orat. iv. §. 20. £c. vid. also Naz.
also de Syn. §. 38. init. Sent. D. fin. Ad Orat. 30. n. 20. Basil, contr. Eunom. i.
Afros. 4. Their cruelty and cooperation 18. Hilar. de Trin. vii. 11. August,
with the heathen popu'lace was another in Joann. xlviii. 6. and in Psalm 44,
reason. Greg. Naz. Orat. 25. 12. (45,) 5.
28 TJie Names of the Son
NIC EN. Son, you have declared what is from the Father by nature ; and
DEF- if you imagine the Word, you are thinking again of what is
from Him, and what is inseparable ; and, speaking of Wisdom,
again you mean just as much, what is not from without, but
from Him and in Him ; and if you name the Power and the
Hand, again you speak of what is proper to substance ;
and, speaking of the Image, you signify the Son ; for what else
is like God but the offspring from Him ? Doubtless the things,
which came to be through the Word, these are founded in
Wisdom ; and what are laid in Wisdom, these are all made by
the Hand, and came to be through the Son. And we have proof
of this, not from external sources, but from the Scriptures ;
Is. 48, for God Himself says by Esaias the Prophet ; My hand also
hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand
Is. 61, hath spanned the heavens. And again, And I hate covered
them in the shadow of My Hand, that I may plant the
heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth. And David
being taught this, and knowing that the Lord's Hand was nothing
Ps. 104, else than Wisdom, says in the Psalm, In wisdom hast Thou
made them all ; the earth is full of Thy riches. Solomon
Prov. 3, also received the same from God, and said, The Lord by
wisdom hath founded the earth; and John, knowing that
John 1, the Word was the Hand and the Wisdom, thus preached, In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning
with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him
was not any thing made. And the Apostle, understanding
that the Hand and the Wisdom and the Word was nothing else
Heb. i, than the Son, says, God, who at sundry times and in divers
manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets,
ha tit in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He
hath appointed Heir of all things, by whom also He made
iCor.s}the ages. And again, There is one Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things, and we through Him. And
knowing also that the Word, the Wisdom, the Son was the
Image Himself of the Father, He says in the Epistle to the
Col. i, Colossians, Giving thanks to God and the Father, which
' hath made ns meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the
in light, -who hath delivered us from the power of
t, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His
imply His divinity.
29
dear Son; in whom we have redemption1, even the remission
of sins ; who is the Image of the Invisible God, the First-
lorn of every creature; for by Him were all things created,
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and wM^-
sible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities,
or powers; all things were created by Him and for Him;
and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
For as all things are created by the Word, so, because He is
the Image, are they also created in Himk. vAnd thus anyone
who directs His thoughts to the Lord, will avoid stumbling
upon the stone of offence, but rather will go forward to that
brightness which is reflected from the light of truth ; for this
is really the doctrine of truth, though these contentious men
burst with spite1, neither religious towards God, nor abashed
at their confutation.
k vid. a beautiful passage, contr.
Gent. 42. &c. Again, of men, " He
made them after His own image, im-
parting to them of the power of His
proper Word, that, having as it were
certain shadows of the Word, and be-
coming rational, A»y/x«), they might be
enabled to continue in blessedness."
Incarn. 3. vid. also Orat. ii. 78. where
he speaks of Wisdom as being infused
into the world on its creation, that it
might possess " a type and semblance
of Its Image."
and so Scrap, ii. fin.
i. de Syn. 34. tiietpptiyvvtiffit
Orat. ii. §. 23. e-tra^ctrrirot-
ffa.1 \aturovf. Orat. ii. $. 64. <rg/£fr« revs
tiovrxf. Sent. D. 16.
CHAP. V.
DEFENCE OF THE COUNCIL'S PHRASES, " FROM THE SUBSTANCE,"
AND " ONE IN SUBSTANCE."
Objection that the phrases are not scriptural; we ought to look at the sense
more than the wording1 ; evasion of the Eusehians as to the phrase " of
God" which is in Scripture; their evasion of all explanations hut those
which the Council selected; which were intended to negative the Arian
formulae ; protest against their conveying any material sense.
NICEN. 1. Now the Eusebians were at the former period examined
PEF> at great length, and convicted themselves, as I said before ;
§' 18' on this they subscribed; and after this change of mind they
kept in quiet and retirement"1; but since the present party, in
the fresh arrogance of irreligion, and in dizziness about the
truth, are full set upon accusing the Council, let them tell us
what are the sort of Scriptures from which they have learned,
1 v. sup. or who is the Saint l by which they have been taught, that they
£ote2y. nave heaped together the phrases, " out of nothing2," and " He
2 *g oix, was not before His generation," and " once He was not," and
" alterable," and " pre-existence," and " at the will ;" which are
their fables in mockery of the Lord. For the blessed Paul in
Heb.ii,his Epistle to the Hebrews says, By faith we understand that
the ages were framed by the Word of God, so that things
which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
But iiothuag is common to the Word with the ages"; for He it
m After the Nicene Council, the a sort of positive existence, though not
Eusebians did not dare avow their an elfiet or substance, and means the
heresy in Constantine's lifetime, but same as " world," or an existing system
merely attempted the banishment of of things viewed apart from time and
Athanasius, and the restoration of motion, vid. Theodor. in Hebr. i. 2.
Arius. Their first Council was A.D. Our Lord then is the Maker of the ages
341, four years after Constantine's thus considered, as the Apostle also tells
death. us, Hebr. 11,3. and God is the King of
n By a"a>, age, seems to be meant the ages, 1 Tim. 1,1 7. or is before all ages,
duracion, or the measure of duration, be- as being eternal, or ^oaiuviot . How-
fore or independent of the existence of ever, sometimes the word is synonymous
motion, which is the measure of time, with eternity; " as time is to things
As motion, and therefore time, are which are under time, so ages to things
creatures, so are the ages. Considered which are everlasting." Damasc. Fid.
as the measure of duration, an age has Orth. ii. 1. and " ages of ages" stands
77/6? Son before all ayes, because their Creator. 31
is who is in existence before the ages, by whom also the ages CHAP.
came to be. And in the Shepherd1, it is written, (since they — — —
allege this book also, though it is not of the Canon0,) " First H.i.vid!
of all believe, that God is one, who created all things, and adAfr-5-
arranged them, and brought all things from nothing into
being ;" but this again does not relate to the Son, for it
speaks concerning all things which came to be through Him,
from whom He is distinct ; for it is not possible to reckon
the Framer of all with the things made by Him, unless a man
is so beside himself as to say that the architect also is the
same as the buildings which he rears.
2. Why then, when they have invented on their part unscrip-
tural phrases, for the purposes of irreligion, do they accuse
those who are religious in their use of them?? For irre-
ligiousness is utterly forbidden, though it be attempted to
for eternity; and then the "ages" or
measures of duration, may be supposed
to stand for the Tbixi or ideas in the
Divine Mind, which seems to have
been a Platonic or Gnostic notion.
Hence Synesiu?, Hymn iii. addresses
the Almighty as uitovoroxs, parent of the
ages. Hence sometimes God Himself
is called the Age, Clem. Alex Hymn.
Paed. iii. fin. or, the Age of ages,
Pseudo-Dion, de Div. Nom. 5. p. 580. or
again, aiuvios. Theodoret sums up what
has been said thus : " Age is not any
subsisting substance, but is an interval
indicative of time, now infinite, when
God is spoken of, now commensurate
with creation, now with human life."
Hser. v. 6. If then, as Athan. says in
the text, the Word is Maker of the
ages, He is independent of duration al-
together; He does not come to be in
time, but is above and beyond it, or
eternal. Elsewhere he says, " The
words addressed to the Son in the 144th
Psalm, ' Thy kingdom is a kingdom of
all ages,' forbid any one to imagine
any interval at all in which the Word
did not exist. For if every interval is
measured by ages, and of all the ages
the Word is King and Maker, there-
fore, whereas no interval at all exists
prior to Him, it were madness to say,
' There was once when the Everlasting
(«/«««") was not.' " Orat. i. 12. And
so Alexander; " Is it not unreasonable
that He who made times, and ages, and
seasons, to all of which belongs i w as not,'
should be said not to be ? for, if so, that
interval in which they say the Son was
not yet begotten by the Father, pre-
cedes that Wisdom of God which framed
all things.' " Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 736.
vid. also Basil, de Sp. S. n. 14. Hilar.
de Trin. xii. 34.
0 And so in Ep. Fest. fin. he enu-
merates it with Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,
Esther, Judith, Tobit, and others, "not
canonized but appointed by the Fathers
to be read by late converts and persons
under teaching." He calls it elsewhere
a most profitable book. Incarn. 3.
P Athan. here retorts the charge
brought against the Council, as it was
obvious to do, which gave occasion for
this Treatise. If the Council went be-
yond Scripture in the use of the word
" substance," (which however can hard-
ly be granted,) who made this necessary,
but they who had already introduced
the phrases, " the Son was out of no-
thing," &c. &c.? " Of the substance,"
and "one in substance," were directly
intended to contradict and supplant the
Arian unscriptural innovations, as he
says below, $. 20. fin.21.init. vid. also ad
Afros. 6. de Synod. §. 36, 37. He observes
in like manner that the Arian ayi»»jr«f,
though allowable as used by religious
men, de Syn. $.46. was unscriptural,
Orat. i. §. 30, 34. Also Epiph. Hser.
76. p. 941. Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 5.
Hilar. contr. Const. 16. Ambros. In-
carn. 80.
32 History of the Nicene symbol, " Of the Substance."
NTCEN. disguise it with artful expressions and plausible sophisms ;
PEF' but religiousness is confessed by all to be lawful, even though
ivid. presented in strange phrases1, provided only they are used
not/in w^tn a religious view, and a wish to make them the expression
of religious thoughts. Now the aforesaid grovelling phrases
of Christ's enemies, have been shewn in these remarks to be
both formerly and now replete with irreligion ; whereas the
definition of the Council against them, if accurately examined,
will be found to be altogether a representation of the truth,
and especially if diligent attention be paid to the occasion
which gave rise to these expressions, which was reasonable,
and was as follows : —
§. 19. 3. The Council2 wishing to negative the irreligious phrases
AfrV*3 °^ ^e ^rians? and to use instead the acknowledged words of
the Scriptures, that the Son is not from nothing but from
God, and is Word and Wisdom, nor creature or work, but
the proper offspring from the Father, the party of Eusebius,
out of their inveterate heterodoxy, understood the phrase from
God as belonging to us, as if in respect to it the Word of God
1 Cor. 8, differed nothing from us, and that because it is written, There
2 Cor. 5 ** one God, from whom all things; and again, Old things are
passed away, behold, all things are new, and all things are
from God. But the Fathers, perceiving their craft and the
cunning of their irreligion, were forced to express more dis-
tinctly the sense of the words from God. Accordingly, they
wrote " from the substance of Godq," in order that/rom God
1 Hence it stands in the Creed, and illuminating all things visible
" from the Father, that is, from the and invisible, gathers them within
substance of the Father." vid. Euse- Himself and knits them in one, leav-
bius's Letter, infra. According to the ing nothing destitute of His power, but
received doctrine of the Church all ra- quickening and preserving all things
tional beings, and in one sense all beings and through all, and each by itself, and
whatever, are "from God," over and the whole altogether." contr. Gent. 42.
above the fact of their creation ; and of Again, " God not only made us of no-
this truth the Eusebians made use to thing, but also vouchsafed to us a life
deny our Lord's proper divinity. Athan. according to God, and by the grace of
lays down elsewhere that nothing re- the Word. But men, turning from
mains in consistence and life, except things eternal to the things of corrup-
from a participation of the "Word, which tion at the devil's counsel, have brought
is to be considered a gift from Him, on themselves the corruption of death,
additional to that of creation, and se- who were, as I said, by nature corrupted,
parable in idea from it. vid. above, but by the grace of the participation
note k. Thus he says that the all- of the" Word, had escaped their natural
powerful and all-perfect, Holy Word state, had they remained good." Incarn.
of the Father, pervading all things, 5. Man thus considered is, in his
and developing every where His power, first estate a son of God and born of
Xecessity of it, to explain " of God" 33
might not be considered common and equal in the Son and CHAP.
in things generate, but that all others might be acknowledged —
as creatures, and the Word alone as from the Father. For
though all things be said to be from God, yet this is not in
the sense in which the Son is from Him ; for as to the crea-
tures, "of God" is said of them on this account, in that they exist
not at random or spontaneously, nor come to be by chance *, ! vid. de
according to those philosophers who refer them to the com- ^35.
bination of atoms, and to elements of similar structure, — nor as
certain heretics speak of a distinct Framer, — nor as others again
say that the constitution of all things is from certain Angels ; —
but in that, whereas God is, it was by Him that all tilings were
brought into being, not being before, through His Word, but
as to the Word, since He is not a creature, He alone is both
called and isfrom the Father; and it is significant of this sense
to say that the Son is " from the substance of the Father," for to
no creature does this attach. In truth, when Paul says that
all things are from God, he immediately adds, and one LordiCor.8,
Jesus Christ, through whom all things, by way of shewing
all men, that the Son is other than all these things which
came to be from God, (for the things which came to be from
God, came to be through His Son ;) and that he had used his
foregoing words with reference to the world as framed by God1,
God, or, to use the term which, occurs the Father, this is done only to the
so frequently in the Arian controversy, exclusion of creatures, or of false gods,
in the number, not only of the creatures, not to the exclusion of His Son who is
but of things generate, yivnrei. This implied in the mention of Himself,
was the sense in which the Arians said Thus when God is called only wise, or
that our Lord was Son of God ; where- the Father the only God, or God is said
as, as Athan. says, u things generate, to be ingenerate, aysvuros, this is not in
being works, cannot be called generate, contrast to the Son, but to all things
except so far as, after their making, which are distinct from God. vid.
they partake of the' begotten Son, and Athan. Orat. iii. 8. Naz. Orat. 30, 13.
are therefore said to have been gene- Cyril. Thesaur. p. 142. " The words
rated also ; not at all in their own na- ' one' and ' only' ascribed to God in
ture, but because of their participation Scripture," says S. Basil, " are not used
of the Son in the Spirit." Orat. i. 56. in contrast to the Son or the Holy Spirit,
The question then was, as to the dis- but with reference to those who are not
Unction of the Son's divine generation God, and falsely called so." Ep. 8. n. 3.
over that of holy men ; and the Catho- On the other hand, when the Father is
lies answered that He was t£ ovffictf, mentioned, the other Divine Persons
from the substance of God ; not by par- are implied in Him, " The Blessed and
ticipation of grace, not by resemblance, Holy Trinity," says S. Athan. " is indi-
not in a limited sense, but really and visible and one in itself; and when the
simply, and therefore by an internal Father is mentioned, His Word is add-
divine act. vid. below, §. 22. and infr. ed, and the Spirit in the Son ; and if
§. 31. note k. the Son is named, in the Son is the Fa-
r "When characteristic attributes and ther, and the Spirit is not external to
prerogatives are ascribed to God, or to the Word." ad Serap. i. 14.
34 History of the Nicene Synod " One in substance"
NICEN. and not as if all things were from the Father as the Son is.
PEF- For neither are other things as the Son, nor is the Word one
among others, for He is Lord and Framer of all ; and on this
account did the Holy Council declare expressly that He was
of the substance9 of the Father, that we might believe the
Word to be other than the nature of things generate, being
alone truly from God ; and that no subterfuge should be left
open to the irreligious. This then was the reason why the
Council wrote " of the substance."
§. 20. 4. Again, when the Bishops said that the Word must be
described as the True Power and Image of the Father, like
to the Father in all things and unvarying1, and as unalterable
an(j as always, and as in Him without division ; (for never
was the Word not, but He was always, existing everlastingly
with the Father, as the radiance of light,) the party of Euse
bius endured indeed, as not daring to contradict, being pu
to shame by the arguments which were urged against them
but withal they were caught whispering to each other anc
winking with their eyes, that " like," and " always," and •
" power," and " in Him," were, as before, common to us and
the Son, and that it was no difficulty to agree to these. As
i Cor. to " like," they said that it is written of us, Man is the image
^Cor 4 an^ 9^ory °f G°d > " always," that it was written, For we
ii- ^ which live are alway ; "in Him," In Him we live and
2si ' move and have our being ; " unalterable," that it is written,
"Rom. 8. Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ; as to
's/iail " power," that the caterpillar and the locust are called
separate power, and great power, and that it is often said of the
25. 4i people, for instance, All the power of the Lord came out of
Ex- 12> the land of Egypt ; and others are heavenly powers, for
Ps .46,8. Scripture says, The Lord of powers is with us, the God
* Vid. also ad Afros. 4. Again, " ' I in His self-existing nature, (vid. Tert.
am,' ro ov, is really proper to God and in Hermog. 3.) nay, it expressly meant
is a whole, bounded or mutilated neither to negative the contrary notion of the
by aught before Him, nor after Him, Arians, that our Lonl was from some-
for He neither was, nor shall be." Naz. thing distinct from God, and in conse-
Orat. 30. 18 fin. Also Cyril Dial. i. quence of created substance. Moreover'
p. 392. Damasc. Fid. Orth. i. 9. and the term expresses the idea of God'
the Semiarians at Ancyra, Epiph. Hser. positively, in contradistinction to nega-
73. 12 init. By the " essence," how- tive epithets, such as infinite, immense,
ever, or " substance" of God, the Council eternal, &c. Damasc. Fid. Orthod. i. 4.
did notmean any thing distinctfrom God, and as little implies any thing distinct
vid. note a, infr. but God Himself viewed from God as those epithets do.
Necessity of it to explain " Image of God" 35
of Jacob is our refuge. Indeed Asterius, by title the sophist, CHAP.
had said the like in writing, having taken it from them, and —
before Him Arius1 having taken it also, as has been said. But ' vid-
the Bishops, discerning in this too their simulation, and 13.^2.
whereas it is written, Deceit is in the heart of the irreligious Prov.
that imagine evil, were again compelled on their part to 2' 2
concentrate the sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and
re-write what they had said before, more distinctly still,
namely, that the Son is " one in substance1" with the Father;
by way of signifying that the Son was from the Father, and
not merely like, but is the same in likeness °, and of shewing
that the Son's likeness and unalterableness was different from
such copy of the same as is ascribed to us, which we acquire
from virtue on the ground of observance of the command-
ments.
5. For bodies which are like each other, may be separated and
Ibecome at distances from each other, as are human sons rela- /
lively to their parents, (as it is written concerning Adam and
Seth, who was begotten of him, that he was like him after his Gen. 5,
own pattern ;)A>ut since the generation of the Son from the
1 vid. ad Afros. 5. 6. ad Scrap, ii. 6.
S. Ambrose tells us, that a Letter
written by Eusebius of Nicomedia, in
which he said, "If we call Him true
Son of the Father and uncreate, then
are we granting that He is one in sub-
stance, opoouffiov^ determined the Coun-
cil on the adoption of the term, de Fid.
iii.n. 125. He had disclaimed "of the sub-
stance,"in his Letter to Paulinus.Theod.
Hist. i. 4. Arius, however, had dis-
claimed optovfftot already. Epiph. Hser.
69. 7. It was a word of old usage in
the Church, as Eusebius of Csesarea con-
fesses in his Letter, infr. Tertullian in
Prax. 13. fin. has the translation " unius
substantive," (vid. Lucifer de non Pare,
p. 21 8.) as he has " de substantia Patris,"
.n Prax. 4. and Origen perhaps used the
tford, vid, Pamph. Apol. 5. and Theo-
*nostus and the two Dionysius's, infra,
j.25. 26. And before them Clement had
spoken of the tvaffit ?%; /^ova^ixtjs olfflug^
:i the union of the single substance,"
vid. Le Quien in Damasc. Fid. Orth.
. 8. Novatian too has " per substan-
:iae comraunionem," de Trinit. 31.
u The Eusebians allowed that our
Lord was like and the image of the Fa-
ther, but in the sense in which a picture
is like the original, differing from it in
substance and in fact. In this sense
they even allowed the strong word
ufugK^XetxTos unvarying image, vid. be-
ginning of §. 20. which had been used
by the Catholics, (vid. Alexander, ap.
Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 740.) as by the
Semiarians afterwards, who even added
ihe words KKT oixrixv, or " according to
substance." Even this strong phrase,
however, xct<r etxrixv «<T#£aAAa*T«j ti-
xuvt or u'ra^xXXuKrus optnn, did not ap-
pear to the Council an adequate safe-
guard of the doctrine. Athan. notices
de Syn. that " like" applies to qualities
rather than to substance, §. 53. Also
Basil. Ep. 8. n.3. " while in itself," says
the same Father, " it is frequently us >d
of faint similitudes, and falling very far
short of the original." Ep. 9. n. 3. Ac-
cordingly, the Council determined on the
worii nfAooutriov as implying, as the text
expresses it, " the same in likeness,"
TKUTOV TVI ofAoiuffti) that the likeness
might not be analogical, vid. the pas-
sage about gold and brass, p. 40. below.
Cyril, in Joan. 1. v. p. 302.
D 2
36 Thoxe, who do not reject Ike CoitnciVs sense, will not its words.
NICEN. Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only
— like, but also inseparable from the substance of the Father,
and He and the Father are one, as He has said Himself, and
the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word,
as the radiance stands towards the light, (for this the phrase
itself indicates,) therefore the Council, as understanding
this, suitably wrote " one in substance," that they might both
defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and shew that the
Word was other than generated things. For, after thus
writing, they at once added, " But they who say that the
Son of God is from nothing, or created, or alterable, or a
work, or from other .substance, these the Holy Catholic
1 via. Church anathematizes O] And in saying this, they shewed
Letter, * clearly that " of the substance," and " one in substance," do
infn negative 2 those syllables of irreligion, such as " created,"
3 Knot.' and "work," and "generated," and "alterable," and "He
P- was not before His generation." And he who holds these,
contradicts the Council; but he who does not hold with
Anus, must needs hold and comprehend the decisions of the
Council, suitably regarding them to signify the relation of the
radiance to the light, and from thence gaining the illustration
of the truth.
§. 21. 6. Therefore if they, as the others, make an excuse that the
terms are strange, let them consider the sense in which the
Council so wrote, and anathematize what the Council ana-
thematized ; and then, if they can, let them find fault with
the expressions. But I well know that, if they hold the
sense of the Council, they will fully accept the terms in which
i7Vinote '1{ is conveyed ; whereas if it be the sense3 which they wish to
m. complain of, all must see that it is idle in them to discuss the
wording, when they are but seeking handles for irreligion.
7. This then was the reason of these expressions; but if
they still complain that such are not scriptural, that very com-
plaint is a reason why they should be cast out, as talking idly
and disordered in mind ; and next why they should blame
themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning
their war against God with words not in Scripture. However,
if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even
if the expressions are not in so many words in the Scriptures,
yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures,
Its sense in Script tire, if /tot its words. 37
and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their CHAP.
hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine. Now this circum- : —
stance it is for thee to consider, and for those illinstructed men
to learn. It has been shewn above, and must be believed as
true, that the Word is from the Father, and the only Offspringx
proper to Him and natural. For whence may one conceive
the Son to be, who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all
things came to be, but from God Himself? However, the
Scriptures also teach us this, since the Father says by David,
My heart was bursting of a good Word, and, From the wombpsA5,i.
before the morning star I begat TJiee; and the Son signifies 3. '
to the Jews about Himself, If God were youi Father, ye John 8,
would Love Me; for I proceeded forth from the Father. 2'
And again; Not that any one has seen the Father, save He Johns,
which is from God, He hath seen the Father. And more-
over, 1 and My Father are one, and, / in the Father aitrf JohnlO,
the Father in Me, is equivalent with saying, " I am from the J0hni4,
Father, and inseparable from Him." And John, in saying, 10-
TJie Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, John. 1,
He hath declared Him, spoke of what he had learned from
the Saviour. Besides, what else does in the bosom intimate,
but the Son's genuine generation from the Father ?
8. If then any man conceives as if God were compound, so §. 22.
as to have accidents in His substancey, or any external
x <ymfl,a«, offspring; this word is of vineyard," and " Who art thou, my
very frequent occurrence in Athan. He son ?" moreover that fruits of the earth
speaks of it, Orat. iv. 3. as virtually are called offspring, ("I will not drink of
Scriptural. " If any one declines to the offspring of this vine,") rarely ani-
say ' offspring,' and only says that the mated things, except indeed in such
Word exists with God,let such a one fear instances as, " O generation (offspring)
lest, declining an expression of Scripture of vipers. " Nyssen defends his brother,
(<ro xtyoutw) he fall into extrava- contr. Eunom. Orat. iii. p. 105. In the
gance, &c." Yet Basil, contr. Eunom. Arian formula " an offspring, but not
ii. 6—8. explicitly disavows the word, as one of the offsprings," it is synony-
as an unscriptural invention of Euno- mous with " work" or " creature."
mius. u That the Father begat we are On the other hand Epiphanius uses
taught in many places: that the Son is it, e. g. Hser. 76. n. 8. and Naz. Orat.
an offspring we never heard up to this 29. n. 2. Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. iv.
day, for Scri iture says, ' unto us & child 2. Pseudo-Basil, adv. Eunom. iv. p. 230.
is born, unto us a son is given.' " c. 7. fin.
He goes on to say that " it is fearful to / ffvufitfaiio;. And so elsewhere, when
give Him names of our own, to whom resistingthe Arian and Sabellian notion
God has given a name which is above that the wisdom of God is only a quality in
every name;" and observes that offspring the Divine nature, "In that case God will
is not the word which even a human father be compounded of substance and quality ;
would apply to his son, as for instance for every quality is in the substance.
we read, " Child, (rijeva*,) go into the And at this rate, whereas the Divine
38 TV speak of God's substance is to speak of God.
NICEN. envelopement*, and to be encompassed, or as if there is aught
— about Him which completes the substance, so that when we
say " God," or name " Father," we do not signify the invisible
and incomprehensible substance, but something about it,
then let them complain of the Council's stating that the Son
was from the substance of God ; but let them reflect, that in
thus considering they commit two blasphemies; for they
make God material, and they falsely say that the Lord is not
\vt£a.u- Son of the very Father, but of what is about Him1. But if
God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying " God"
and naming " Father," we name nothing as if about
Him, but signify His substance itself. For though to
comprehend what the substance of God is be impossible,
yet if we only understand that God is, and if Scripture
indicates Him by means of these titles, we, with the intention
of indicating Him and none else, call Him God and Father
Ex. 3, and Lord. When then He says, / am that I am, and I am
the Lord God, or when Scripture says, God, we understand
nothing else by it but the intimation of His incomprehensible
substance Itself, and that He Is, who is spoken of*. Therefore
Unity Oovas) is indivisible, it will be that " not every thing which is said to
considered compound, being separated be in God is said according to substance."
into substance and accident." Orat. de Trin.v. 6. And hence, while Athan. in
iv. 2. vid. also Orat. i. 36. This is the text denies that there are qualities
the common doctrine of the Fathers, or the like belonging to Him, «reg< Ktirbr,
Athenagoras, however, speaks of God's it is still common in the Fathers to
goodness as an accident, " as colour to speak of qualities, as in the passage of
the body," " as flame is ruddy and the S. Gregory just cited, in which the
sky blue," Legat. 24. This, however, is words vi£ hoi occur. There is no dif-
but a verbal difference, for shortly before ficulty in reconciling these statements,
he speaks of His being, <ro ovras ov, and though it would require more words
His unity of nature, <ro povoipuis , as in the than could be given to it here. Petavius
number of Ivirvftfitfaxirm awrf . Eu- has treated the subject fully in his work
sebius uses the word ffupfafaxos in the de Deo i. 7—11. and especially ii. 3.
same way, Demonstr. Evang. iv. 3. When the Fathers say that there is no
And hence St. Cyril, in controversy difference between the divine ' propri-
with the Arians, is led by the course of etates' and essence, they speak of the
their objections to observe, " There are fact, considering the Almighty as He
cogent reasons for considering these is ; when they affirm a difference, they
things as accidents ffvpfafaxora in God, speak of Him as contemplated by us,
though they be not." Thesaur. p. 263. who are unable to grasp the idea of Him
vid. the following note. as one and simple, but view His Divine
2_ ri{*0«X«, and so de Synod. §. 34. Nature us if in projection, (if such a word
which is very much the same passage, may be used,) and thus divided into
some Fathers, however, seem to say the substance and quality as man may be
reverse. E. g. Nazianzen says that divided into genus and difference.
neither the immateriality of God nor a In like manner de Synod. §. 34.
ingenerateness, present to us His sub- Also Basil, " The substance is not any
stance. Orat. 28. 9. And St. Augustine, one of things which do not attach, but is
arguing on the word ingenitus, says, the very being of God." contr. Eunom.
" Of the substance" only brings out the meaning of " Son^ 39
let no one be startled on hearing that the Son of God is from CHAP.
the substance of the Father ; rather let him accept the — —
explanation of the Fathers, who in more explicit but equiva-
lent language have for from God written " of the sub-
stance." For they considered it the same thing to say that
the Word was of God and " of the substance of God," since
the word " God," as I have already said, signifies nothing
but the substance of Him Who Is. If then the Word is not
in such sense from God, as to be Son, genuine and natural,
from the Father, but only as creatures because they are
framed, and as all things are from God, then neither is He
from the substance of the Father, nor is the Son again Son
according to substance, but in consequence of virtue, as we
who are called sons by grace. But if He only is from God,
as a genuine Son, as He is, then let the Son, as is reasonable,
be called from the substance of God.
9. Again, the illustration of the Light and the Radiance has §.23.
this meaning. For the Saints have not said that the Word
was related to God as fire kindled from the heat of the sun,
which is commonly put out again, for this is an external
work and a creature of its author, but they all preach of Him as
Radianceb, thereby to signify His being from the substance,
proper and1 indivisible, and His oneness with the Father.
This also will secure His true2 unalterableness and immuta-
bility ; for how can these be His, unless He be proper
i. 10 fin. " The nature of God is no Father as a light from a light or as
other than Himself, for He is simple a lamp divided into two, which after
and uncompounded." Cyril Thesaur. all was Arian doctrine. Athanasius
p. 59. " "When we say the power of refers to fire, Orat. iv. §. 2 and 10. but
the Father, we say nothing else than still to fire and its radiance. However,
the substance of the Father." August, we find the illustration of fire from fire,
de Trin. vii. 6. And so Numenius in Justin. Tryph. 61. Tatian contr. Grsec.
Eusebius, " Let no one deride, if I say 6. At this early day the illustration of
that the name of the Immaterial is sub- radiance mighthave a Sabellian bearing,
stance and being." Prsep. Evang. xi. as that of fire in Athan. 'shad an Arian.
10. Hence Justin protests against those
b Athan. 's ordinary illustration is, as who considered the Son as4 'like the sun's
here, not from " fire," but from " ra- light in the heaven," which tl when it
diance," asrayya^a, after St. Paul sets, goes away with it," whereas it is
and the Author of the Book of Wisdom, as " fire kindled from fire." Tryph. 128.
meaning by radiance the light which a Athenagoras, however, like Athanasius,
light diffuses by means of the atmo- says " as light from fire," using also
sphere. On the other hand Arius in the word Arttfuu, effluence: vid. also
his letter to Alexander, Epiph. Hser. Orig. Periarch. i. 2.n. 4. Tertull. Ap.
69. 7. speaks against the doctrine of 21. Theognostus infr. §. 25.
Hieracas that the Son was from the
40 " One in substance'" but brings out the meaning of "Image"
NICEN. Offspring of the Father's substance? for this too must be
_5?-Ii taken to confirm His ' identity with His own Father.
^7«T° 10. Our explanation then having so religious an aspect,
Christ's enemies should not be startled at the " One in
substance" either, since this term also admits of being soundly
expounded and defended. Indeed, if we say that the
Word is from the substance of God, (for after what has been
said this must be a phrase admitted by them,) what does this
mean but the truth and eternity of the substance from which
He is begotten ? for it is not different in kind, lest it be
combined with the substance of God, as something foreign
and unlike it. Nor is He like only outwardly, lest He
seem in some respect or wholly to be other in substance, as
brass shines like gold and silver like tin. For these are foreign
and of other nature, and are separated off from each other in
nature and qualities, nor is brass proper to gold, nor is the
2 vid. de pigeon born from the dove2 ; but though they are considered
, yet they differ in substance. If then it be thus with the
Mel. et gon? let mm ke a creature as we are, and not One in sub-
stance ; but if the Son is Word, Wisdom, Image of the Father,
Radiance, He must in all reason be One in substance. For
3 1« i.e. unless5 it be proved that He is not from God, but an instru-
ifatow, ment4 different in nature and different in substance, surely
the Council was sound in its doctrine and apposite in its
decree0.
$. 24. !!• Further, let every corporeal thought be banished on this
subject ; and transcending every imagination of sense, let us,
with the pure understanding and with mind alone, apprehend
•"' ytrnn the Son's genuine 5 relation towards the Father, and the Word's
^7«Ta proper6 relation towards God, and the unvarying7 likeness
of the radiance towards the light: for as the words " Offspring"
and " Son" bear, and are meant to bear, no human sense, but
one suitable to God, in like manner when we hear the phrase
" one in substance," let us not fall upon human senses, and
imagine partitions and divisions of the Godhead, but as
having our thoughts directed to things immaterial, let us
c As " of the substance" declared " likeness," even " like in substance"
that our Lord was uncreate, so " one answering for this purpose, for such
in substance" declared that He was equal phrases might all be understood of re-
with the Father ; no terno_4e*k^d from semblance or representation, vid. note t.
The Son the one Mediator between tlte Father and creation. 41
preserve undivided the oneness of nature and the identity CHAP.
of light ; for this is proper to the Son as regards the Father, —
and in this is shewn that God is truly Father of the Word.
Here again, the illustration of light and its radiance is
in point0. Who will presume to say that the radiance
is unlike and foreign from the sun ? rather who, thus con-
sidering the radiance relatively to the sun, and the identity
of the light, would not say with confidence, " Truly the light
and the radiance are one, and the one is manifested in the
other, and the radiance is in the sun, so that whoso sees this,
sees that also ?" but such a oneness and natural possession1, ' &«'«*«•*
what should it be named by those who believe and see aright,
!but Offspring one in substance ? and God's Offspring what
should we fittingly and suitably consider, but the Word, and
Wisdom, and Power ? which it were a sin to say was foreign
from the Father, or a crime even to imagine as other than
with Him everlastingly.
12. For by this Offspring the Father made all things, and
-extending His Providence unto all things, by Him He
•exercises His love to man, and thus He and the Father
are one, as has been said ; unless indeed these perverse men
make a fresh attempt, and say that the substance of the W^ord
is not the same as the Light which is in Him from the
Father, as if the Light in the Son were one with the Father,
but He Himself foreign in substance as being a creature. Yet
this is simply the belief of Caiaphas and Samosatene, which the
Church cast out, but they now are disguising; and by this
they fell from the truth, and were declared to be heretics. For
if He partakes in fulness the light from the Father, why is
iHe not rather that which others partake 2, that there be no 2 via. p.
medium introduced between Himself and the Father? Other- c.'n
wise, it is no longer clear that all things were generated by
the Son, but by Him, of whom He too partakes*. And if
d Athan.has just used the illustration His different titles to be those of dif-
of radiance in reference to " of the ferent beings or subjects, or not really
substance :" and now he says that it and properly to belong to one and the
equally illustrates " one in substance;" same person ; so that the Word was not
the light diffused from the sun being at the Son, or the Radiance not the Word,
nnce contemporaneous and homogeneous or our Lord was the Son, but only im-
with its original. properly the Word, not the true Word,
* The point in which perhaps all the Wisdom, or Radiance. Paul of Samo-
ancient heresies concerning our Lord's sata, Sabellius, and Arius, agreed in
divine nature agreed, was in considering considering that the Son was a creature,
42 The Son partaken of all in the Spirit.
.this is the Word, the Wisdom of the Father, in whom the
^- Father is revealed and known, and frames the world, and
without whom the Father doth nothing, evidently He it is
who is from the Father : for all things generated partake of
Him, as partaking of the Holy Ghost. And being such, He
cannot be from nothing, nor a creature at all, but rather the
proper Offspring from the Father as the radiance from light.
and that He was called, made after, or the Word or Wisdom was held to be
inhabited by the impersonal attribute personal, it became the doctrine of
called the Word or Wisdom. When Nestorius.
CHAP. VI.
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL.
Theognostus ; Dionysius of Alexandria ; Dionysius of Rome ; Origen.
1. THIS then is the sense in which the Fathers at Nicsea CHAP.
made use of these expressions ; but next that they did not r —
invent them for themselves, (since this is one of then- excuses,) *"
but spoke what they had received from their predecessors,
proceed we to prove this also, to cut off even this excuse
from them. Know then, O Arians, foes of Christ, that
Theognostus3, a learned man, did not decline the phrase
" of the substance," for in the second book of his Hypo-
typoses, he writes thus of the Son : —
" The substance of the Son is not any thing procured from
without, nor accruing out of nothing1', but it sprang from the
Father's substance, as the radiance of light, as the vapour ° of
water ; for neither the radiance, nor the vapour, is the water
itself or the sun itself, nor is it alien j but it is an effluence of the
Father's substance, which, however, suffers no partition. For as
the sun remains the same, and is not impaired by the rays poured
forth by it, so neither does the Father's substance suffer change,
though it has the Son as an Image of Itself d."
Theognostus then, after first investigating in the way of an
a Athanasius elsewhere calls him alone," says Tertullian, "because there
" the admirable and excellent." ad was nothing external to Him, extrin-
Serap. iv. 9. He was Master of the secus ; yet not even then alone, for He
Catechetical school of Alexandria to- had with Him, what He had in Him-
wards the end of the 3d century, being self, His Reason." in Prax. 5. Non
a scholar, or at least a follower of per adoptionem spiritus films fit extrin-
Origen, His seven books of Hypo- secus, sed natura filius est. Origen.
typoses treated of the Holy Trinity, Periarch. i. 2. n. 4.
of angels, and evil spirits, of the Incar- c From "Wisdom 7, 25. and so Ori-
nation, and the Creation. Photius, gen. Periarch. i. 2. n. 5. and 9. and
who gives this account, Cod. 106, ac- Athan. de Sent. Dionys. 15.
cuses him of heterodoxy on these d It is sometimes erroneously sup-
points ; which Athanasius in a measure posed that such illustrations as this are
admits, as far as the wording of his intended to explain how the Sacred
treatise went, when he speaks of his Mystery in question is possible, whereas
" investigating by way of exercise." they are merely intended to shew that
Eusebius does not mention him at all. the words we use concerning it are not
b Vid. above §. 15. fin. " God was self -contradictory , which is the objec-
44
Theognostus. Dionysius of Alexandria.
]S ICE x. exercise % proceeds to lav down his sentiments in the
DEF. c . ,
foregoing words.
2. Next, Dionysius, who was Bishop of Alexandria,
upon his writing against Sabellius and expounding at large
the Saviour's economy according to the flesh, and thence
proving against the Sabellians that not the Father but His
Word was made flesh, as John has said, was suspected of
saying that the Son was a thing made and generated, and not
one in substance with the Father; on this he writes to his
namesake Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, to explain that this
was a slander upon himf. And he assured him that he had
not called the Son made, nay, did confess Him to be even
one in substance. And his words run thus : —
" And I have written in another letter a refutation of the false
tion most commonly brought against
them. To say that the doctrine of the
Son's generation does not intrench upon
the Father's perfection and immuta-
bility, or negative the Son's eternity,
seems at first sight inconsistent with
what the words Father and Son mean,
till another image is adduced, such as
the sun and radiance, in which that
alleged inconsistency is seen to exist
in fact. Here one image corrects
another; and the accumulation of
images is not, as is often thought, the
restless and fruitless effect of the mind
to enter into the Mystery, but is a safe-
guard against any one image, nay, any
collection of images being supposed suffi-
cient. If it be said that the language
used concerning the sun and its radi-
ance is but popular not philosophical,
so again the Catholic language con-
cerning the Holy Trinity may, nay,
must be economical, not adequate,
conveying the truth, not in the tongues
of angels, but under human modes of
thought and speech.
e iv yuf^vctfice. \^7a.ffK;. And SO §. 27.
01 Origen, I^YITUV xai yvftvii^uv. Con-
stantine too, writing to Alexander and
Arius, speaks of altercation, ^t/<r/«J?j
ntas yupveiFttt.? 'ivixet. Socr. i. 7- In
somewhat a similar way, Athauasius
speaks of Dionysius writing xctr' elxovo-
F»'et>, economically, or with reference to
certain persons addressed or objects
contemplated, de Sent. D. 6. and 26.
f It is well known that the great de-
velopment of the power of the See of
Rome was later than the age of
Athanasius; but it is here in place, to
state historically some instances of an
earlier date in which it interfered in
the general conduct of the Church. S.
Clement of Rome wrote a pastoral
letter to the Corinthians, at a time
when they seem to have been without a
Bishop. The heretic Marcion, on his
excommunication at home, came to
Rome upon the death of Hyginus the
ninth Bishop, and was repulsed by the
elders of the see. Epiph. Hser. 42. n.
1. Polycarp came to Anicetus on the
question of Easter. Euseb. Hist. iv. 14.
Soter, not. only sent alms to the
Churches of Christendom generally,
according to the primitive custom of
his Church, but " exhorted affection-
ately the brethren who came up thither
as a father his children." ibid. iv. 23.
Victor denounced the Asian Churches
for observing Easter after the Jewish
custom, ibid. v. 24. Paul of Samosata
was put out of the see house at An-
tioch by the civil power, on the decision
of " the Bishops of Italy and of
Rome." ibid. vii. 30. For a considera-
tion of this subject, as far as it is an
objection to the Anglican view of ecclesi-
astical polity, the reader is referred to
Mr. Palmer's Treatise on the Church,
vii. 3 and 4. where five reasons are as-
signed for the early pre-eminence of the
Roman Church ; the number of its
clergy and people, its wealth and
charity, its apostolical origin, the
purity of its faith, and the temporal
dignity of the city of Rome.
Dionysius of Rome. 45
charge they bring against me, that I deny that Christ was one in CHAP.
substance with God For though I say that I have not found VI.
this term any where in Holy Scripture, yet my remarks which
follow, and which they have not noticed, are not inconsistent with
that belief. For I instanced a human production as being evidently
homogeneous, and I observed that undeniably parents differred from
their children only in not being the same individuals, otherwise
there could be neither -parents nor children. And my letter, as
I said before, owing to present circumstances I am unable to pro-
duce ; or I would have sent you the very words I used, or rather a
copy of it all, which, if I have an opportunity, I will do still.
But I am sure from recollection that I adduced parallels of things
kindred with each other; for instance, that a plant grown from
seed or from root, was other than that from which it sprang, yet
was altogether one in nature with it g : and that a stream flowing
from a fountain, gained a new name, for that neither the fountain
was called stream, nor the stream fountain, and both existed, and
the stream was the water from the fountain."
3. And that the Word of God is not a work or creature, & 26.
but an offspring proper to the Father's substance and indivi-
sible, as the great Council wrote, here you may see in the
words of Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, who, while writing
against the Sabellians, thus inveighs against those who dared
=to say so : —
" Next, I reasonably turn to those who divide and cut into pieces
and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the
'Divine Monarchy11, making it certain three powers and partitive1
ftimt
8 The Eusebians at Nicsea objected 15. also Orat. 20. 7. and Epiph. Hser.
to this image, Socr. i. 8. as implying 57. 5. Tertullian, before Dionysius,
that the Son was a arga/3aA.*j, issue or uses the word Monarchia, which Prax-
development, as Valentinus taught, eas had perverted into a kind of Uni-
Epiph. Hser. 69. 7 • Athanasius else- tarianism or Sabellianisrn, in Prax. 3.
where uses it himself. Irenseus too wrote on the Monarchy,
•> By the Monarchy is meant the i. e. against the doctrine that God is
doctrine that the Second and Third the author of evil. Eus. Hist. v. 20.
Persons in the Ever-blessed Trinity And before him was Justin's work de
are ever to he referred in our thoughts Monarchia, where the word is used in
to the First as the Fountain of God- opposition to Polytheism. The Mar-
head, vid. p. 25. note e. and p. 33. note cionites, whom Dionysius presently
r. It is one of the especial senses in mentions, are also specified in the above
which God is said to be one. " "We extract by Athan. vid. also Cyril. Hier.
are not introducing three origins or Cat. xvi. 4. Epiphanius says that
three Fathers, as the Marcionites and their three origins were God, the Cre-
Manichees, just as our illustration is ator, and the evil spirit. Hser. 42, 3. or as
not of three suns, but of sun and its Augustine says, the good, the just, and
radiance." Orat iii. $. 15. vid. also iv. the wicked, which may be taken to mean
§.1. " The Father is union, "nuns," nearly the same thing. Hser. 22. The
says S. Greg. Naz. " from whom and Apostolical Canons denounce those who
unto whom are the others." Orat 42. baptize into Three Unoriginate ; vid.
46
Heresy of Tr it he-ism .
N i CEN. subsistences ' and godheads three. I am told that some among
PEF» you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the
lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to
Sabellius's opinions ; for he blasphemously says that the Son is
the Father, and the Father the Son, but they in some sort preach
three Gods, as dividing the Holy Unity into three subsistences
foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must needs be
that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is one, and
the Holy Ghost must repose 'and habitate in God; thus in one as
in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine
Trinity k be gathered up and brought together. For it is the
doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion, to sever and divide
the Divine Monarchy into three origins, — a devil's teaching, not
that of Christ's true disciples and lovers of the Saviour's lessons.
For they know well that a Trinity is preached by divine Scrip-
ture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three
Gods.
4. Equally must one censure those who hold the Son to be
a work, and consider that the Lord has come into being, as one of
things which really came to be ; whereas the divine oracles witness
to a generation suitable to Him and becoming, but not to any
fashioning or making. A blasphemy then is it, not ordinary, but
also Athan. Tom. ad Antioch. 5. Naz.
Orat. 20. 6. Basil denies r^t7f fyxixal
vxofrdffHSi ^e Sp. S. 38. which is a
Platonic phrase.
1 And so Dionysius of Alexandria in
a fragment preserved by S. Basil, " Tf
because the subsistences are three, they
say that they are partitive, ft,ip,i0nrp,tvKs ,
still three there are, though these per-
sons dissent, or they utterly destroy the
Divine Trinity." deSp. S.n. 72. Athan.
expresses the same more distinctly, oi>
v^its vvoffTUfftis f£lf*.i£ttrp,iviis , Expos.
Fid. §. 2. In S. Greg. Naz. we find
aftigitrrei Iv fUfitfirftitut fi 6torns. Orat.
31. 14. Elsewhere for tutf*. he substi-
tutes a.Ttffr)-yfJt,iva.i. Orat. 20. 6. xvtlsvu-
(Atmt aZ.XfaavxKi^itff'zraffftivcts Orat. 23.
6. as infra %itas aXX^Xwv •xavroc.iru.fft xi^ca-
pffftitKf. The passage in the text
comes into question in the controversy
about the \\ vfotrruffius ?j ova-ixs of the
Nicene Creed, of which infra on the
Creed itself in Eusebius's Letter.
k The word rpas translated Trinity
is first used by Theophilus, ad Autol. ii.
15. Gibbon remarks that the doctrine of
" a numerical rather than a generical
unity," which has been explicitly put
forth by the Latin Church, is " favoured
by the Latin language ; r^as seems to
excite the idea of substance, trinitas of
qualities." ch.21. note 74. It is certain
that the Latin view of the sacred truth.
when perverted, becomes Sabellianism ;
and that the Greek, when perverted, be-
comes Arianism ; and we find Arius
arising in the East, Sabellius in the
West, It is also certain that the word
Trinitas is properly abstract; and ex-
presses T£ia.f or " a three," only in an
ecclesiastical sense. But Gibbon does
not seem to observe that Unitas is
abstract as well as Trinitas ; and that
we might just as well say in con-
sequence, that the Latins held an ab-
stract unity or a unity of qualities,
while the Greeks by paws taught the
doctrine of " a one" or a numerical
unity. " Singularitatem hanc dico, says
S. Ambrose, quod Greece (tovdms dici-
tur ; singularitas ad personam pertinet,
unitas ad naturam." de Fid. v. 1. It
is important, however, to understand,
that u Trinity" does not mean the state
or condition of being three, as humanity
is the condition of being man, but is sy-
nonymous with " three persons." Hu-
manity does not exist and cannot be
addressed, but the Holy Trinity is a
three, or a unity which exists in three.
Apparently from not considering this,
Luth-r and Calvin objected to the word
Trinity, " It is a common prayer,"
says Calvin, " Holy Trinity, one God,
have mercy on us. It displeases me,
and savours throughout of barbarism."
Ep. ad Poloo. p. 796.
Heresy of making the Son a creature. 47
even the highest, to say that the Lord is in any sort a handiwork. CHAP.
For if He came to be Son, once He was not; but He was always, "VI.
if (that is) He be in the Father, as He says Himself, and if the ~~
Christ be Word and Wisdom and Power, (which, as ye know, divine
Scripture says,) and these attributes be powers of God. If then the
Son came into being once, these attributes were not; consequently
there was a time, when God was without them ; which is most ex-
travagant. And why say more on these points to you, men full
of the Spirit and well aware of the extravagances which come to
view from saying that the Son is a work ? Not attending, as I
consider, to this circumstance, the authors of this opinion have
entirely missed the truth, in explaining, contrary to the sense of
divine and prophetic Scripture in the passage, the words, The Lord Prov. 8,
hath created Me a beginning of His ivays unto His works. For the 22.
sense of He created, as ye know, is not one, for we must under-
stand He created in this place, as f He set over the works made
by Him/ that is, ' made by the Son Himself/ And He created
here must not be taken for made, for creating differs from
making ; Is not He Thy Father that hath bought thee P hath He not Deut.
made thee and created thee P says Moses in his great song in Deu-32, 6.
teronomy. And one may say to them, O men of great hazard,
is He a work, who is the First-born of every creature, who is borncol. 1,
from the ivomb before the morning star, who said, as Wisdom, 15.
Before all the hills He begets Me? And in many passages of theps- 110»
divine oracles is the Son said to have been generated, but now here pnv g
to have2 come into being; which manifestly convicts those of rnis- 25.
conception about the Lord's generation, who presume to call His 1 y«yg»-
divine and ineffable generation a making !. Neither then may we wteu
divide into three Godheads the wonderful and divine Unity ; nor * 7{yav«-
disparage with the name of ' work' the dignity and exceeding va'
majesty of the Lord ; but we must believe in God the Father
Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost,
and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is united. For
/, says He, and the Father are one ; and, / in the Father and the
1 This extract discloses to us, (in con- of the heresy, and that not at first sight
nexion with the passages from Diony- an obvious one, which is found among the
sius Alex, here and in the de Sent. D.) Arians, Prov. 8, 22. 3. The same
a remarkable anticipation of the Arian texts were used by the Catholics,
controversy in the third century. 1. It which occur in the Arian controversy,
appears that the very symbol of %t on alx, e. g. Deut. 32, 6. against Prov. 8, 22.
j)», " once He was not," was asserted or and such as Ps. 110, 3. Prov. 8,25.
implied; vid. also the following extract and the two John 10, 30. and 14, 10.
from Origen, §. 27. and Origen Peri- 4. The same Catholic symbols and
archon, iv. 28. where mention is also statements are found, e. g. " begotten
made of the ȣ olx. Strut, " out of not made," " one in substance," " Tri-
nothing," which was the Arian symbol nity," utiotiprot, ava^ev, ai/yivt? , light
in opposition to "of the substance." from light, &c. Much might be said
Allusions are made besides, to "the on this circumstance, as forming part of
Father not being always Father," de the proof of the very early date of the de-
Sent. D. 15. and " the Word being velopment and formation of the Catho-
brought to be by the true Word, and lie theology, which we are at first sight
Wisdom by the true Wisdom;" ibid. 25. apt to ascribe to the 4th and 5th cen-
2.Thesamespecialtextisusedindefence turies.
48 The labour-loving Or'n/cn.
NICEN. Father in Me. For thus both the Divine Trinity, and the holy
DBF. preaching of the Monarchy, will be preserved."
§. 27. 5. And concerning the everlasting co-existence of the Word
with the Father, and that He is not of another substance or
subsistence, but proper to the Father's, as the Bishops in
the Council said, hear again from the labour-loving ra Origen
also. For what he has written as if inquiring and exercising
himself, that let no one take as expressive of his own sen-
timents, but of parties who are disputing in the investigation,
but what he" definitely declares, that is the sentiment of the
i vid. p. labour-loving man. After his exercises ! then against the
44, ncte heretics, straightway he introduces his personal belief,
thus:—
" If there be an Image of the Invisible God, it is an invisible
Image ; nay, I will be bold to add, that, as being the likeness of
the Father, never was it not For else was that God, who, ac-
cording to John, is called Light, (for God is Light,) without the
radiance of His proper glory, that a man should presume to assert
the Son's origin of existence, as if before He was not. But
when was not that Image of the Father's Ineffable and Nameless
and Unutterable subsistence, that Expression and Word, and He
that knows the Father ? for let him understand well who dares to
say, ' Once the Son was net,' that he is saying, * Once Wisdom
was not,' and ' Word was not,' and ' Life was not.' "
6. And again elsewhere he says : —
" But it is not innocent nor without peril, if because of our
weakness of understanding we deprive God, as far as in us lies,
of the Only-begotten Word ever co-existing with Him ; and the
Wisdom in which He rejoiced; else He must be conceived as
not always possessed of joy."
See, we are proving that this view has been transmitted
from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and
disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to
m QiXaveieu, and SO Serap. iv. 9. *ou qn^vivou TO Q^ewftti \vn. 'l aXXi.
n &! ftlv us &<ruv KKfyvfAVK%6>vtj'£u4't, Certe legendum «XX' «, idque omnino
UTOV ty^evouvros 3i%ia-£u T<S' exigit sensus." Montfaucon. Rather
wirin iv -ry for atiius read « & <ij, and put the stop
T«I, rotJ7« at £»jT£ry instead ot
The Nicene Council did but consign tradition to writing. 4!)
your phrases ? Not one of the understanding and wise ; for CHAP.
all abhor you, but the devil alone1; none but he is your--
father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered Q
on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you
to slander the Ecumenical Council0, for committing to writing,
not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning thost^
who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed
down to usp. For the faith which the Council has confessed
in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church ; to assert
this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while
0 vid. supr. §. 4. Orat. i. §. 7. Ad
Afros. 2 twice. Apol. contr. Arian. 7.
ad Ep. ^Eg. 5. Epiph. Hser. 70. 9.
Euseb. Vit. Const, iii. 6. The Council
was more commonly called pfyaXv
vid. supr. §. 26. The second General
Council, A.D. 381, took the name of
ecumenical, vid. Can. 6. fin. but inci-
dentally. The Council of Ephesus so
styles itself in the opening of its Synodi-
cal Letter.
P The profession under which the
decrees of Councils come to us is that
of setting forth in writing what has ever
been held orally or implicitly in the
Church. Hence the frequent use of
such phrases as iyy^utfus ify-rtfa with
reference to them. Thus Damasus,
Theod. Hist.v. 10. speaks of that " apo-
stolical faith, which was set forth in
writing by tbe Fathers in Nicsa." On
the other hand, Ephrem of Antioch,
speaks of the doctrine of our Lord's
perfect humanity being " inculcated by
our Holy Fathers, but not as yet [i. e.
till the Council of Chalcedon] being
confirmed by the decree of an ecumeni-
cal Council." Phot. 229. p. 801.(syy?«-
s, however, sometimes relates to the
act of subscribing. Phot. ibid, or to Scrip-
ture, Clement. Strom, i. init. p. 321.)
Hence Athan. says ad Afros. 1 and 2.
that " the Word of the Lord which
was given through the ecumenical
Council in Nicaea remainelhfor ever ;"
and uses against its opposers the texts,
" Remove not the ancient landmark
which thy fathers have set," (vid. also
Dionysius in Eus Hist. vii. 7.) and " He
that curseth his father or his mother,
shall surely be put to death." Prov. 22,
28. Ex. 21, 17. vid. also Athan. ad Epict.
1. And the Council of Chalcedon pro-
fesses to " drive away the doctrines of
error by a common decree, and renew
the unswerving faith of the fathers,"
Act. i-. p. 452. " as," they proceed,
" from of old the prophets spoke of
Christ, and He Himself instructed us,
and the creed of the Fathers has de-
livered to us," whereas " other faith it
is not lawful for any to bring forth, or
to write, or to draw up, or to hold, or
to teach." p. 456. vid. S. Leo. supr.
p. 5. note m. This, however, did not
interfere with their adding without un-
doing: " For," says Vigilius, " if it
were unlawful to receive aught further
after the Nicene statutes, on what
authority venture we to assert that the
Holy Ghost is of one substance with
the Father, which it is notorious was
there omitted H" contr. Eutych. v. init.
he gives other instances, some in point,
others not. vid. also Eulogius, apud
Phot. Cod. 23. pp. 829. 853. Yet to
add to the confession of the Church is not
to add to ihefaithj since nothing can be
added to the faith. Leo, Ep. 124.
p. 1237. Nay, Athan. says that the
Nicene faith is sufficient to refute
every heresy, ad Max. 5. fin. also Leo.
Ep. 54. p. 956. and Naz. Ep. 102. init.
excepting, however, the doctrine of the
Holy Spirit ; which explains his mean-
ing. The Henoticon of Zeno says the
same, but with the intention of dealing
a blow at the Council of Chalcedon.
Evagr. iii. 14. p. 345. Aetius at
Chalcedon says that at Ephesus and
Chalcedon the Fathers did not pro-
fess to draw up an exposition of faith,
and that Cyril and Leo did but in-
terpret the Creed." Cone. t. 2. p. 428.
Leo even says that the Apostles'
Creed is sufficient against all heresies,
and that Eutyches erred on a point
" of which our Lord wished no one
of either sex in the Church to be igno-
rant," and he wishes Eutyches to take
the plenitude of the Creed " puro
et simplici corde." Ep. 31. p. 857, 8.
50 Arians quarrelled with the sense, not the words merely.
NICEN. condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why
- these apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is
1»upr.§.not the terms which trouble them1, but that those terms
21. init. . . .. .
prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other
heresies.
CHAP. VII.
This term afterwards adopted by them; and why; three senses of it.
A fourth sense. Ingenerate denotes God in contrast to His creatures,
not to His Son; Father the scriptural title instead; Conclusion.
1. THIS in fact was the reason, when the unsound nature CHAP.
of their phrases had been exposed at that time, and they VI1'
were henceforth open to the charge of irreligion, that they $
proceeded to borrow of the Greeks the term Ingenerate %
that, under shelter of it, they might reckon among the things
generate and the creatures, that Word of God, by whom
these very things came to be; so unblushing are they in
their irreligion, so obstinate in their blasphemies against the
Lord. If then this want of shame arises from ignorance
of the term, they ought to learn of those who gave it
them, and who have not scrupled to say that even in-
tellect, which they derive from Good, and the soul which
proceeds from intellect, though their respective origins be
known, are notwithstanding ingenerate, for they understand
that by so saying they do not disparage that first Origin
of which the others come b. This being the case, let them
a etystnro*. Opportunity will occur tal;" but Athan. is referring to an-
for noticing this celebrated word on other subject, the Platonic, or rather
Orat. i. 30—34. where the present the Eclectic Trinity. Thus Theodoret,
passage is partly re-written, partly " Plotinus, and Numenius, explaining
transcribed. Mention is also made of the sense of Plato, say, that he taught
it in the De Syn. 46, 47. Athanasius Three principles beyond time and eter-
would seem to have been but partially nal, Good, Intellect, and the Soul of
acquain ted with the writings of the Ano- all," de Affect. Cur. ii. p. 750. And
moeans, whose symbol it was, and to so Plotinus himself, " It is as if one
have argued with them from the writ- were to place Good as the centre, In-
ings of the elder Arians, who had also tellect like an immoveable circle round,
made use of it. and Soul a moveable circle, and moveable
b Montfaucon quotes a passage from by appetite." 4 Ennead. iv. c. 16. vid.
Plato's Phaedrus, in which the human Porphyry in Cyril, contr. Julian, viii. p.
soul is called " ingenerate and immor- 271. vid. ibid. i. p. 32. Plot. 3 Ennead.
E 2
52 Arians used phrases, neither in nor according to Scripture.
NICEN. say the like themselves, or else not speak at all, of what they
— ^- do not know. But if they consider they are acquainted with
the subject, then they must be interrogated; for0 the ex-
1 supr. p. pression is not from divine Scripture1, but they are con-
te tentious, as elsewhere, for unscriptural positions. Just as I
have related the reason and sense, with which the Council
and the Fathers before it defined and published " of the
substance," and " one in substance," agreeably to what
Scripture says of the Saviour ; so now let them, if they can,
answer on their part what has led them to this unscriptural
phrase, and in what sense they call God Ingenerate ?
2. In truth, I am told d, that the name has different senses;
philosophers say that it means, first, " what has not yet, but
may, come to be ;" next, " what neither exists, nor can come
into being;" and thirdly, " what exists indeed, but was neither
generated nor had origin of being, but is everlasting and
indestructible0." Now perhaps they will wish to pass over the
v. 2 and 3. Athan.'s testimony that
the Platonists considered their three
vrotrrdpnj all ingenerate is perhaps a
singular one. In 5 Ennead. iv. 1.
Plotinus says what seems contrary to
it, fi $\ag%n ayivvyros, speaking of His
>r&yu.6ov. Yet Plato, quoted by Theo-
doret, ibid. p. 749, speaks of t'jrt
i , on ftKXiffTtx.) Orat. i.
§. 36. de Syn. §. 21. lin. oruv (Jt-i^yra.
Apol. ad Const. 23. x«J ^aA/^-ra, de
Syn. §. 42. 54.
d And so de Syn. $. 46. " we have
on careful inquiry ascertained, &c."
Again, " I have acquainted myself on
their account [the Arians'] with the
meaning of Kyivvrav." Orat. i. §. 30.
This is remarkable, for Athan. was a
man of liberal education, as his Orat.
contr.Gent. and de Incarn. shew, especi-
ally his acquaintance with the Platonic
philosophy. Sulpicius too speaks of
him as a jurisconsultus, Sacr. Hist. ii.
50. St. Gregory Naz. says, that he
gave some attention, but not much, to
the subjects of general education, run
\yxvx\iuv, that he might not be alto-
gether ignorant, of what he nevertheless
despised, Orat. 21. 6. In the same way
S. Basil, whose cultivation of mind
none can doubt, speaks slightingly of
his own philosophical knowledge. He
writes of his " neglecting his own
weakness, and being utterly unex-
ercised in such disquisitions;" contr.
Eunom. init. And so in de Sp. §. 5.
he says, that " they who have given
time" to vain philosophy, " divide
causes into principal, co-opera tive,"&c.
Elsewhere he speaks of having " ex-
pended much time on vanity, and
wasted nearly all his youth in the
vain labour of pursuing the studies of
that wisdom which God has made
foolishness," Ep. 223. 2. In truth,
Christianity has a philosophy of its own.
Thus in the commencement of his Vise
Dux Anastasiussays, " It is a first point
to be understood, that the tradition of
the Catholic Church does not proceed
upon, or follow, the philosophical de-
finitions in all respects, and especially
as regards the mystery of Christ, and
the doctrine of the Trinity, but a cer-
tain rule of its own, evangelical and
apostolical." p. 20.
8 Four senses of «y$v>jr«v are enu-
merated, Orat. i. §. 30. 1. What is
not as yet, but is possible ; 2. what
neither has been, nor can be ; 3. what
exists, but has not come to be from any
cause ; 4. what is not made, but is ever.
Only two senses are specified in the de
Syn. §. 46. and in these the question
really lies; 1. what is, but without
a cause ; 2. uncreate.
The equivocation of the word Ingenerate. 53
first two senses, from the absurdity which follows ; for according CHAP.
to the first, things that already have come to be, and things that -^H:_
are expected to be, are ingenerate ; and the second is more
extravagant still ; accordingly they will proceed to the third
sense, and use the word in it : though here, in this sense too,
their irreligion will be quite as great. For if by Ingenerate
they mean what has no origin of being, nor is generated or
created, but eternal, and say that the Word of God is contrary
to this, who comprehends not the craft of these foes of God ?
who but would stone f such madmen ? for, when they are
ashamed to bring forward again those first phrases which they
fabled, and which were condemned, the bad men have taken
another way to signify them, by means of what they call
Ingenerate. For if the Son be of things generate, it
follows, that He too came to be from nothing ; and if
He has an origin of being, then He was not before His
generation ; and if He is not eternal, there was once when
He was notg. If these are their sentiments, they ought §. 29.
to signify their heterodoxy in their own phrases, and not to
hide their perverseness under the cloke of the Ingenerate.
But instead of this, the evil-minded men are busy with their
craftiness after their father, the devil ; for as he attempts to
deceive in the guise of others, so these have broached the
term Ingenerate, that they might pretend to speak piously of
«£« a-avra/v, Orat. ii. leopard, let him die spots and all," &c.
§. 28. An apparent allusion to the &c. Orat. 28. 2.
punishment of blasphemy and idolatry 5 The Arians argued that the word
under the Jewish Law. vid. reference to Ingenerate implied generate or creature
Ex.21, 11, in page49, note p. Thus, e.g. as its correlative, and therefore indi-
Nazianzen : " While I go up the mount rectly signified Creator; so that the
with good heart, that I may become Son being not ingenerate, was not the
within (he cloud, and may hold converse Creator. Athan. answers, that in the
with God, for so God bids ; if there use of the word, whether there be a Son
be any Aaron, let him go up with me does not come into the question. AlTEKe |
and stand near. And if there be any idea of Father and Son does not in-
Nadab or Abiud, or of the elders, let elude creation, so that of creator and- }
him go up, but stand far off, according creature does not include generation ^ j
to the measure of his purification. . . . and it would be as illogical to infer
But if any one is an evil and savage that there are no creatures because
beast, and quite incapable of science there is a Son, as that there is no Son
and theology ; let him stand off still because there are creatures. Or, more
further, and depart from the mount; or closely, as a thing generate, though
he will be stoned and crushed ; for the not the Father, is not therefore Son, so
wicked shall be miserably destroyed, the Son though not Tngenerate is not
For as stones for the bestial are true therefore a thing generate, vid. p. 33X
words and strong. Whether he be note r.
54 Ingenerate does not exclude the idea of Son but of creature.
NicEN.God, yet might cherish a concealed blasphemy against the
— ^- Lord, and under this covering might teach it to others.
3. However, on the detecting of this sophism, what remains
to them ? " We have found another," say the evil-doers ; and
then proceed to add to what they have said already, that
Ingenerate means what has no author of being, but stands
itself in this relation to things generate. Unthankful, and
in truth deaf to the Scriptures ! who do every thing, and
say every thing, not to honour God, but to dishonour
the Son, ignorant that he who dishonours the Son, dis-
honours the Father. For first, even though they denote
God in this way, still the Word is not proved to be
of things generated. For if He be viewed as offspring of the
substance of the Father, He is of consequence with Him
eternally. For this name of offspring does not detract from
the nature of the Word, nor does Ingenerate take its sense
from contrast with the Son, but with the things which come
to be through the Son ; and as he who addresses an
architect, and calls him iramer of house or city, does not
under this designation allude to the son who is begotten from
him, but on account of the art and science which he displays
in his work, calls him artificer, signifying thereby that he is
not such as the things made by him, and while he knows the
nature of the builder, knows also that he whom he begets is
other than his works ; and in regard to his son calls him
father, but in regard to his works, creator and maker ; in like
manner he who says in this sense that God is ingenerate,
names Him from His works, signifying, not only that He is
not generate, but that He is maker of things which are so ;
yet is aware withal that the Word is other than the things
1 ftiH generate, and alone a proper1 offspring of the Father, through
whom all things came to be and consist h.
$. 30. 4. In like manner, when the Prophets spoke of God as All-
powerful, they did not so name Him, as if the Word were
2 CMC T£V included in that All2 ; (for they knew that the Son was other than
things generate, and Sovereign over them Himself, according
to His likeness to the Father ;) but because He is Sovereign
over all things which through the Son He has made, and
*> The whole of this passage is re- particular argument, Basil also, contr.
peated in Orat. i. 33. &c. vid. for this Eunom. i. 16.
As 'Lord of Hosts' does not exclude a Son, so not Ingenerate* 55
has given the authority of all things to the Son, and having CHAP.
given it, is Himself once more the Lord of all things through the -
Word. Again, when they called God, Lord of the powers *, * *• e.
they said not this as if the Word was one of those powers,
but because, while He is Father of the Son, He is Lord of
the powers which through the Son have come to be. For
again, the Word too, as being in the Father, is Lord of them all,
and Sovereign over all ; for all things, whatsoever the Father
hath, are the Son's. This then being the force of such titles,
in like manner let a man call God ingenerate, if it so please
him ; not however as if the Word were of generate things, but
because, as I said before, God not only is not generate, but
through His proper Word is He the maker of things which are
so. For though the Father be called such, still the Word is the
Father's Image and one in substance with Him ; and being
His Image, He must be distinct from things generate, and from
every thing ; for whose Image He is, to Him hath He it to be
proper2 and to be like: so that he who calls the Father ingene-2T>j» ka-
rate and almighty, perceives in the Ingenerate and the Almighty, r"Ta
His Word and His Wisdom, which is the Son. But these
wondrous men, and prompt for irreligion, hit upon the term
Ingenerate, not as caring for God's honour, but from male-
volence towards the Saviour; for if they had regard to
honour and blessing, it rather had been right and good to
acknowledge and to call God Father, than to give Him
this name ; for in calling God ingenerate, they are, as I said
before, calling Him from things which came to be, and as
a Maker only, that so they may imply the Word to be a work
after their own pleasure ; but he who calls God Father, in
Him withal signifies His Son also, and cannot fail to know
that, whereas there is a Son, through this Son all things that
came to be were created.
5. Therefore it will be much more accurate to denote God§. 31.
from the Son and to call Him Father, than to name Him
and call Him Ingenerate from His works only ; for the latter
term refers to the works that have come to be at the will of
God through the Word, but the name of Father points out
the proper offspring from His substance. And whereas the
Word surpasses things generate, by so much and more also
doth calling God Father surpass the calling Him Ingenerate ;
5fi Father, not Ingenerate, the Scripture term.
NIC EN. for the latter is unscriptural and suspicious, as it has various
— senses ; but the former is simple and scriptural, and more
accurate, and alone implies the Son. And " Ingenerate" is
a word of the Greets who know not the Son : but " Father"
has been acknowledged and vouchsafed by our Lord ; for He,
Johni4, knowing Himself whose Son He was, said, I in the Father
Johnio ai*d 1ke Father in Me; and, He that hath seen Me hath
30. seen the Father; and, / and the Father are one; but no
where is He found to call the Father Ingenerate. Moreover,
when He teaches us to pray, He says not, " When ye pray,
Mat. 6, say, O God Ingenerate," but rather, When ye pray, say, Our
Father, which art in heaven. And it was His Will, that the
Summary of our faith should have the same bearing. For
He has bid us be baptized, not in the name of Ingenerate
and generate, not into the name of uncreate and creature, but
into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost'; for witli
such an nitiation we too are made sons verily k, and using the
9.
1 And so St. Basil, " Our faith was
not in Framer and Work, but in Father
and Son were we sealed through the
grace in baptism." contr. Eunom. ii. 22.
And a somewhat similar passage occurs
Orat. ii. §. 41.
k \}\Qir(Hov(ji.tQtt. K,Xvi6uf. This strong
term " truly" or " verily" seems taken
from such passages as speak of the
" grace and truth'' of the Gospel, John
i. 12 — 17. Again St. Basil says, that
we are sons, *wg/wf, " properly," and
f^uTUi " primarily,'' in opposition to
r£oirixus, "figuratively," contr. Ennom.
ii. -26. St. Cyril too says, that we are
sons " nfjturalK "$tiftx£s as well as xara,
%d£iv, vid. Suicer Thesaur. v. vio's, i. 3.
Of these words, a.\wfu>g Qvo-ixa; , *ogittf:
and vf&reof, the first two are commonly
reserved for our Lord ; e. g. TOV <iX9i0eSs
way, Orat. ii. $. 37. n/u,tts i/iei, CVK, us
ixtTvos Qvffti xut «X>j^£/a, iii. §. li>.
Hilary seems to deny us the title of
"proper" sons; de Trin. xii. 15; but
his " proprium" is a translation of }%ov,
not xvgius. And when Justin says of
Christ, o fiovos Xfyt'/usvos »Vfutf vto{,
Apol. ii. 0. x'jeius seems to be used
in reference to the word xu^io; Lord,
which he has just been using, xv^iobo-
yilv, being sometimes used by him as
others in the sen.se of '' naming as
Lord," like fioXoyiTv. vid. Tryph. 56.
There is a passage in Justin's ad
Greec. 21. where he (or the writer)
when speaking of \yu tlfti o uv, uses
the word in the same ambiguous sense ;
oiiSiv ya.^ ovofAK iri 6itv *tf£l»3(.aytiftiu
^uvctrcV) 21 ; as if xu^/aj, the Lord,
by which " I am" is translated,
were a sort of symbol of that proper
name of God which cannot be given.
But to return ; the true doctrine
then is, that, whereas there is a pri-
mary and secondary sense in which the
word Son is used, primary when it has
its formal meaning of continuation
of nature, and secondary when it is
used nominally, or for an external
resemblance to the first meaning, it
is applied to the regenerate, not in
the secondary sense, but in the
primary. St. Basil and St. Gre-
gory Nyssen consider Son to be " a
term of relationship according to na-
ture," (vid. supr. p. 16, note k,) also
Basil in Psalm 28, 1. The actual
presence of the Holy Spirit in the rege-
nerate in substance, (vid. Cyril. Dial. 7.
p. 638.) constitutes this relationship of
nature ; and hence after the words
quoted from St. Cyril in the be-
ginning of this note, in which he
says, that we are sons, Qvtrixus, he pro-
ceeds, " naturally, because we arc in
Him, and in Him alone." vid. Athan.'s
\orcl terms of heresy met by neic lerms of orthodoxy. 57
mime of the Father, we acknowledge from that name, tin- Word CHAP.
in the Father. But if He wills that we should call His own VII>
Father our Father, we must not on that account measure
ourselves with the Son according to nature, for it is because
of the Son that the Father is so called by us ; for since the
Word bore our body and came to be l in us, therefore by reason J y*yf«»
of the Word in us, is God called our Father. For the Spirit"
of the Word in us, names through us His own Father as
ours, which is the Apostle's meaning when he says, God Gal. 4,
liatli sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts,
crying, Abba, Father.
6. But perhaps being refuted as touching the term In generate §. 32.
also, they will say, according to their evil nature, " It behoved,
as regards our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ also,, to state
from the Scriptures2 what is there written of Him, and not to'JsuPr-P-
introduce unscriptural expressions." Yes, it behoved, say I
too ; for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from
Scripture, than from other sources1; but the ill disposition
and the versatile and crafty irreligion of the Eusebians, com-
pelled the Bishops, as I said before, to publish more dis-
tinctly the terms which overthrow their irreligion ; and what
the Council did write has already been shewn to have an
orthodox sense, while the Arians have been shewn to be
corrupt in their expressions, and evil in their dispositions.-
words which follow in the text at on it, to the Catholic doctrine of the
the end of §. 31. And hence Nys- fulness of the Christian privileges, vid.
sen lays down, as a received truth, supr. p. 32. note q.
that " to none does the term ' proper,' 1 " The holy and inspired Scriptures
xupurarev, apply, but to one in whom are sufficient of themselves for the
the name responds with truth to the preaching of the truth ; yet there are
nature," contr. Eunom. iii. p. 123. also many treatises of our blessed
And he also implies, p. 117, the inti- teachers composed for this purpose."
mate association of our sonship with contr. Gent. init. ll For studying and
Christ's, when he connects together mastering the Scriptures, there is need
regeneration with our Lord's eternal of a good life and a pure soul, and
generation, neither being S/a vutiovs, virtue according to Christ," Incarn. 57.
or, of the will of the flesh. If it be u Since divine Scriptures is more suf-
asked, what the distinctive words are ficient than any thing else, I recom-
which are incommunicably the Son's, mend persons who wish to know fully
since so much is man's, it is obvious concerning these things," (the doctrine
to answer, fttos via? and powyttv;, which of the blessed Trinity,) " to read the
are in Scripture, and the symbols " of divine oracles," ad Ep. JEg. 4. " The
the substance, "and "one in substance," Scriptures are sufficient for teaching;
of the Council ; and this is the value of but it is good for us to exhort each
the Council's phrases, that, while they other in the faith and to refresh each
guard the Son's divinity, they allow other with discourses." Vit. S. Ant. 16.
full scope, without risk of entrenching And passim in Athart.
58 Conclusion.
NicEN.The term Ingenerate, having its own sense, and admitting of
— a religious use, they nevertheless, according to their own idea,
and as they will, use for the dishonour of the Saviour, all for
the sake of contentiously maintaining, like giants m, their fight
with God. But as they did not escape condemnation when
they adduced these former phrases, so when they misconceive
of the Ingenerate which in itself admits of being usedf/welJL
and religiously, they were detected, being disgraced before
all, and their heresy every where proscribed.
7. This then, as I could, have I related, by way of explain-
ing what was formerly done in the Council ; but I know that
the contentious among Christ's foes will not be disposed to
change even after hearing this, but will ever search about
for other pretences, and for others again after those. For
Jer. 13, as the Prophet speaks, If the Ethiopian change his skin, or
the leopard his spots, then will they be willing to think
religiously, who have been instructed in irreligion. Thou
however, Beloved, on receiving this, read it by thyself; and
if thou approvest of it, read it also to the brethren who
happen to be present, that they too on hearing it, may
welcome the Council's zeal for the truth, and the exactness
of its sense; and may condemn that of Christ's foes, the
Arians, and the futile pretences, which for the sake of their
irreligious heresy they have been at the pains to frame for
each other; because to God and the Father is due the
glory, honour, and worship with His co-existent Son and
Word, together with the All-holy and Life-giving Spirit, now
and unto endless ages of ages. Amen.
m And so^Orat. ii. $. 32. xara, revs ascendancy. Also Socr. v. 10. p. 268.
ftvftuopirous yiyavretf. And so Nazian- d. Sometimes the Scripture giants are
zen, Orat. 43. 26. speaking of the dis- spoken of, sometimes the mythologi-
orderly Bishops during the Arian cal.
APPENDIX.
LETTER OF EUSEBIUS OF CMESAREA TO THE PEOPLE OF HIS
DIOCESE a.
1. WHAT was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith
the Great Council assembled at Nica?a, you have probably PIX*
learned, Beloved, from other sources, rumour being wont *'
to precede the accurate account of what is doing. But
lest in such reports the circumstances of the case have been
misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you,
first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves, and next,
the second, which the Fathers put forth with some additions
to our words. Our own paper then, which was read in the
presence of our most pious b Emperor, and declared to be
good and unexceptionable, ran thus : —
2. As we have received from the Bishops who preceded, us and §.2.
in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Laver,
• This Letter is also found in Socr. to the brilliancy of the imperial purple.
Hist. i. 8. Theod. Hist. i. Gelas. Hist. He confesses, however, he did not sit
Nic. ii. 34. p. 442. Niceph. Hist. viii. down until the Bishops bade him.
22. Again at the same Council, " with
b And so infr. " most pious," §. 4. pleasant eyes looking serenity itself into
" most wise and most religious," ibid, them all, collecting himself, and in a
" most religious," §. 8. §. 10. Euse- quiet and gentle voice" he made an
bius observes in his Vit. Const, the oration to the Fathers upon peace,
same tone concerning Constantine, and Constantine had been an instrument in
assigns to him the same office in deter- conferring such vast benefits, humanly
mining the faith (being as yet un- speaking, on the Christian body, that it
baptized). E. g. " When there were dif- is not wonderful that other writers of the
ferences between persons of different day besides Eusebius should praise him.
countries, as if some common bishop Hilary speaks of him as " of sacred
appointed by God, he convened Coun- memory," Fragm. 5. init. Athanasius
cils of God's ministers; and not dis- calls him " most pious," Apol. contr.
daining to be present and to sit amid Arian. 9. " of blessed memory," ad Ep.
their conferences," &c. i. 44. When JEg. 18. 19. Epiphanius a most re-
he came into the Nicene Council, " it ligious and of ever-blessed memory,"
was," says Eusebius, " as some hea- Hser. 70. 9. Posterity, as was na-
venly Angel of God," iii. 10. alluding tural, was still more grateful.
6*0 Letter of Ensebius of Ccesarea
NicEN.and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we
DEF. believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself,
so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith,
and it is this ° : —
§.3. We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of
all things visible and invisible.
And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from
God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten,
first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from
the Father, by whom also all things were made ; who for our
salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered,
and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and
will come again in glory to judge quick and dead.
And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each of
These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son
truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our
Mat. 28, Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go,
teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Concerning whom we con-
fidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have
held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathe-
matizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought
from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and
now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord
Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to shew and to
convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief
and preaching.
§•4. 3. On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for
c " The Children of the Church have suing from Apostolical teaching and
received from their holy Fathers, that the Fathers' tradition, and confirmed
is, the holy Apostles, to guard the faith; by New and Old Testament." ad
and withal to deliver and preach it to Adelph. 6. init. Cyril Hier. too as
their own children Cease not, faith- "declared by the Church and esta-
ful and orthodox men, thus to speak, blished from all Scripture." Cat. v. 12.
and to teach the like from the divine " Let us guard with vigilance what we
Scriptures, and to walk, and to cate- have received What then have we
chise, to the confirmation of yourselves received from the Swiptures but alto-
and those who hear you; namely, that gether this? that God made the world
holy faith of the Catholic Church, as by the Word," &c. &c. Procl. ad Ar-
the holy and only Virgin of God re- men. p. 612. " That God, the Word,
ceived its custody from the holy Apostles after the union remained such as He
of the Lord; and thus, in the case of was, &c. so clearly hath divine Scrip-
each of those who are under cate- ture, and moreover the doctors of the
chining, who are to approach the Holy Churches, and the lights of the world
I. aver, ye ought not on'y to preach taught us." Theodor. Dial. 3. init.
faith to your children in the Lord, but " That it is the tradition of the Fathers
also to teach them expressly, as your is not the whole of our case ; for they
common mother teaches, to say: ' We too followed the meaning of Scripture,
believe in One God,'" &c. Epiph. starting from the testimonies, which
Ancpr. 119 fin. who thereupon proceeds just now we laid before you from Scrip-
to give at length the Niceno-Constan- ture." Basil de Sp. $. It), vid. also a re-
tinopohtan Creed. And so Athan. markable passage in de Synod. §. 6. fin.
speaks of the orthodox faith, as " is- infra.
to the people of Ids Diocese. 61
contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before APPEN
any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox state- PIX>
ments. He confessed moreover that such were his own
Sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, and to
subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion
of the single word, One in substance, which moreover he
interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of bodies,
nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father, in the way of
division, or any severance ; for that the immaterial, and
intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the subject
of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive
of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And such
were the theological remarks of our most wise and most
religious Emperor; but they, with a view to the addition of
One in substance, drew up the following formula : —
4. The Faith dictated in the Council.
" We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all
things visible and invisible : —
" And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of
the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the Substance of the
Father ; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very
God, begotten not made, One in substance with the Father, by
whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in
earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and
was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third
day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead.
" And in the Holy Ghost.
" But those who say, ' Once He was not/ and ' Before His
generation He was not/ and ' He came to be from nothing/ or
those who pretend that the Son of God is ' Of other subsistence or
substance d/ or ' created,' or ' alterable/ or e mutable/ the Catholic
Church anathematizes."
5. On their dictating this formula, we did not let it §.5.
pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced " of the
substance of the Father," and " one in substance with the
Father." Accordingly questions and explanations took place,
d The only clauses of the Creed the former shall be reserved for a later
which admit of any question in their part of the volume; the latter is treated
explanation, are the "He was not of in a note at the end of this Treatise ;
before His generation," and " of other infr. p. 60.
subsistence or substance." Of these
(j2 Letter of Eusebius of C&sarea
NICEN. and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of
PEF- reason. And they professed, that the phrase " of the sub-
stance" was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the
Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with
this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of
such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was
from the Father, not however a part of His substance6. On
this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without
declining even the term " One in substance," peace being
the object which we set before us, and stedfastness in the
orthodox view.
§.6. 6. In the same way we also admitted " begotten, not
made ;" since the Council alleged that " made" was an ap-
pellative common to the other creatures which came to be
through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness. Where-
fore, said they, He was not a work resembling the things
which through Him came to bef, but was of a substance
e Eusebius does not commit himself
to any positive sense in which the
formula " of the substance" is to be
interpreted, but only says what it docs
not mean. His comment on it is " of
the Father, but not as a part;" where,
what is not negative, instead of being
an explanation, is but a recurrence to
the original words of Scripture, of
which l| olffias itself is the explanation ;
a curious inversion. Indeed it is very
doubtful whether he admitted the tg
ovffiag at all. He says, that the Son is
not like the radiance of light so far as
this, that the radiance is an inseparable
accident of substance, whereas the Son
is by the Father's will, XU,TK yvujtw xa.}
<r£«a/££ov«i,Demostr.Ev.iv,3. And though
he insists on our Lord being alone, i»
6iou, yet he means in the sense which
Athan. refutes, supr. §. 7. viz. that He
alone was created immediately from
God, vid. next note f. It is true that
he plainly condemns with the Nicene
Creed the \\ OVK ovrav of the Arians,
" out of nothing," but an evasion was
at hand here also ; for he not only adds,
according to Arian custom, '' as others,"
(vid. note following,) but he has a theory
that no being whatever is out of nothing,
for non-existence cannot be the cause
of existence. God, he says, " proposed
His own will and power as a sort of
matter and substance of the production
and constitution of the universe, so that
it is not reasonably said, that any
thing is out of nothing. For what is
from nothing cannot be at all. How
indeed can nothing be to any thing a
cause of being ? but all that is, takes
its being from One who only is, and
was, who also said, ' I am that I am.' "
Demostr. Ev. iv. 1. Again, .speaking
of our Lord, " He who was from no-
thing would not truly be Son of God,
as neither is any other of things gene-
rate" Eccl. Theol. i. 9. fin.
f Eusebius distinctly asserts, Dem.
Ev. iv, 2. that our Lord is a creature.
" This offspring," he says, " did He
first produce Himself fiom Himself as
a foundation of those things which
should succeed, the perfect handywork,
$'/ifAtovt>'ytiftct, of the Perfect, and the
wise structure, a«^/T«xTo»^a, of the
Wise," &c. Accordingly his avowal
in the text is but the ordinary Arian
evasion of "an offspring, not as the
offsprings." E. g. " It is not without
peril to say recklessly that the Son is
generate out of nothing similarly to the
other generates" Dem. Ev. v. 1. vid.
also Eccl. Theol. i. 9. iii. 2. And he
considers our Lord the only Son by a
div'ne provision similar to that by which
there is only one sun in the firmament,
to the people of his Diocese.
63
which is too high for the level of any work1, and which APPEN-
the Divine oracles teach to have been generated from the DT/X>
Father8, the mode of generation being inscrutable and in-
calculable to every generated nature.
7. And so too on examination there are grounds for saying, §. 7.
that the Son is " one in substance" with the Father ; not in
the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such
by division of substance, or by severance 2, 110 nor by any 2 ***'
affection3, or alteration, or changing of the Father's substance
and power h, (since from all such the ingenerate nature of
as a centre of light and heat. " Such
an Only-begotten Son, the excellent
artificer of His will and operator, did
the supreme God and Father of that
operator Himself first of all beget,
through Him and in Him giving sub-
sistence to the operative words (ideas
or causes) of things which were to be,
and casting in Him the seeds of the
constitution and governance of the uni-
verse ; . . .Therefore the Father being
one, it behoved the Son to be one also ;
but should any one object that He con-
stituted not more, it is fitting for such
a one to complain that He constituted
not more suns, and moons, and worlds,
and ten thousand other things." Dem.
Ev. iv. 5. fin. vid. also iv. 6.
8 Eusebius does not say that our
Lord is from the substance of the
Father, but has a substance from the
Father. This is the Semi-arian doc-
trine, which, whether confessing the
Son from the substance of the Father
or not, implied that His substance was
not the Father's substance, but a
second substance. The same doctrine
is found in the Semi-arians of Ancyra,
though they seem to have confessed, " of
the substance." And this is one object
of the opoouffiot, to hinder the confession
" of the substance" from implying a
second substance, which was not ob-
viated or was even encouraged by the
ofAtiovffuv. The Council of Ancyra,
quoting the text " As the Father hath
life in Himself, so," &c. says, " since
the life which is in the Father means
substance, and the life of the Only-
begotten which is begotten from the
Father means substance, the word ' so'
implies a likeness of substance to sub-
stance." Hter. 73. 10 fin. Hence
Eusebius does not scruple to speak of
u two substances," and other writers of
three substances, contr. Marc. i. 4. p.
25. He calls our Lord " a second
substance." Dem. Ev. vi. Prsef. Prsep.
Ev. vii, 12. p. 320. and the Holy Spirit
a third substance, ibid. 15. p. 325. This
it was that made the Latins so sus-
picious of three hypostases, because the
Semi-arians, as well as they, understood
vvrofreiffif to mean substance. Eusebius
in like manner calls our Lord " another
God," " a second God." Dem. Ev. v.
4. p. 226. v. fin. " second Lord." ibid.
3 init. 6 fin. " second cause." Dem.
Ev. v. Prsef. vid. also trtpov 1%ovfet
TO xetr' oiitrietv vvroxtif&tvov, Dem. Ev.
v. 1. p. 215. Kttf IKVTOV ouffiupivos . ibid,
iv. 3. And so 'Irt^os •ffct^a, rbv
Eccl. Theol. i. 20. p. 90. and
%%&>v. ibid, and guv xet.) vQitrrui xai rou
vuT^of v7fK/>%ut txrof. ibid. Hence
Athan. insists so much, as in this
treatise, on our Lord not being external
to the Father. Once admit that He
is in the Father, and we may call the
Father, the only God, for He is in-
cluded. And so again as to the In-
generate, the term does not exclude the
Son, for He is generate in the Ingene-
rate.
h This was the point on which, as
we have partly seen already, the Semi-
arians made their principal stand
against the " one in substance,"
though they also objected to it as
being of a Sabellian character. E. g.
Euseb. Demonstr. iv. 3. p. 148. d. p.
149. a, b. v. 1. p. 213—215. contr.
Marcell. i. 4. p. 20. Eccl. Theol. i. 12.
p. 73. in laud. Const, p. 525. de Fide i.
ap. Sirmond. torn. i. p. 7. de Fide ii. p.
16. and apparently his de Incorporali.
And so the Semi-arians at Ancyra,
Epiph. Hcer. 73. 11. p. 858. a, b. And
so Meletius, ibid. p. 878 fin. and Cyril
Hier. Catech. vii, 5. xi, 18. though of
64 Letter of Eusebhix of
NicEN.tlie Father is alien,) but because " one in substance with the
T) F F
— ^ Father" suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance
to the generated creatures, but that to His Father alone who
begat Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He
is not of any other subsistence and substance, but from the
Father1. To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared
well to assent; since we were aware that even among the
ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers k
have used the term '* one in substance," in their theological
teaching concerning the Father and Son.
§. 8. 8. So much then be said concerning the faith which was
published ; to which all of us assented, not without inquiry,
but according to the specified senses, mentioned before the
most religious Emperor himself, and justified by the fore-
mentioned considerations. And as to the anathematism
published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain
us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from
which almost all the confusion and disorder of the Church
have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has
used the phrases, " out of nothing," and " once He was not,"
and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for
using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good
decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use
these terms.
§.9. 9. Moreover to anathematize " Before His generation He
was not," did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed
course Catholics would speak as strongly confess Him also the true God, as in an
on this point as their opponents. image, and that possessed ; so that the
1 Here again Eusebius does not say addition of ' only' may belong to the
"from the Father's substance," but Father alone as archetype of the image
" not from other substance, but from tbe As, supposing one king held sway,
Father." According to note e. supr. he and his image was carried about into
considered the will of God a certain mat- every quarter, no one in his right mind
ter or substance. Montfaucon in loc. and would say that those who held sway
Collect. Nov. Prsef p. xxvi. translates were two, but one wbo was honoured
without warrant " ex Patris hypostasi through His image; in like manner,"
et substantial As to the Son's perfect &c. de Eccles. Theol. ii, 23. vid. ibid,
likeness to the Father which he seems 7. pp. 109. 111.
here to grant, it has been already k Athanasius in like manner, ad
shewn, p. 35. note u, how the admission Afros. 6. speaks of " testimony of an-
was evaded. The likeness was but cient Bishops about 130 years since ;"
a likeness after its own kind, as a and in de Syn. §. 43. of " long before"
picture is of the original. " Though the Council of Antioch, A. D. 269. viz.
our Saviour Himself teaches," he says, the Dionvsii, &c. vid. supra p. 35. note
" that the Father is the < only true t.
God,' still let me not be backward to
to the people of his diocese. 65
by all, that the Son of God was before the generation ac-AppEN-
cording to the flesh !. Nay, our most religious Emperor Plx'
did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in being §• 10-
even according to His divine generation which is before
all ages, since even before He was generated in energy,
He was in virtue"1 with the Father ingenerately, the Father
being always Father, as King always, and Saviour always,
having all things in virtue, and being always in the same
respects and in the same way.
10. This we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, §• 11.
as making clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry and
assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last
minute as long as we were offended at statements which
differed from our own, but received without contention what
no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid examination of
the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide with
what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we have
already published.
1 Socrates, who advocates the ortho-
doxy of Eusebius, leaves out this he-
terodox paragraph altogether. Bull,
however, Defens. F. N. iii. 9. n. 3.
thinks it an interpolation. Athanasius
alludes to the early part of the clause,
supr. p. 7. and ad Syn. §. 13. where he
says, that Eusebius implied that the
Arians denied even our Lord's existence
before His incarnation. As to Con-
stantine, he seems to have be^n
used on these occasions by the court
Bishops who were his instructors,
and who made him the organ of their
own heresy. Upon the first rise of the
Arian controversy he addressed a sort
of pastoral letter to Alexander and
Arius, telling them that they were
disputing about a question of words,
and recommending them to drop it and
live together peaceably. Euseb. vit. C.
ii. 69. 72.
m Theognis, another of the Nicene
Arians, says the same, according to Phi-
lostorgius ; viz. " that God even before
He begat the Son was a Father, as having
the power, luvapis. of begetting." Hist,
ii. 15. Though Bull pronounces such
doctrine to be heretical, as of course it is,
still he considers that it expresses what
otherwise stated may be orthodox, viz. the
doctrine that our Lord was called the
Word from eternity, and the Son upon
His descent to create the worlds. And
he acutely and ingeniously interprets
the Arian formula, " Before His gene-
ration He was not," to support this
view. Another opportunity will occur
of giving an opinion upon this question;
meanwhile, the parallel on which the
heretical doctrine is supported in the
text is answered by many writers, on
the ground that Father and Son are
words of nature, but Creator, King,
Saviour, are external, or what may be
called accidental to Him. Thus Atha-
nasius observes, that Father actually
implies Son, but Creator only the power
to create, as expressing a $uvetf&is •, " a
maker is before his works, but he who
says Father, forthwith in Father implies
the existence of the Son." Orat. iii. §.
6. vid. Cyril too, Dial. ii. p. 459.
Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eun. iv. 1. fin. On
the other hand Origen argues the
reverse way, that since God is eternally
a Father, therefore eternally Creator
also. " As one cannot be father with-
out a son, nor lord without possession,
so neither can God be called Allpower-
ful, without subjects of His power;"
Periarch. i. 2. n. 10. hence he argued
for the eternity of matter.
NOTE on page 61.
On the meaning of the phrase e% srepois viroa-Toureaos $ ouenaj in
the Nicene Anathema.
NICEN. Bishop Bull has made it a question, whether these words in the
Nicene Creed mean the same thing, or are to be considered dis-
tinct from each other, advocating himself the latter opinion against
Petavius. The history of the word vvofretvtf is of too intricate a
character to enter upon here ; but a few words may be in place
in illustration of its sense as it occurs in the Creed, and with
reference to the view taken of it by the great divine, who has
commented on it.
Bishop Bull, as I understand him, (Defens. F. N. ii. 9- §' 11.)
considers that two distinct ideas are intended by the words tvrlet
and vTroo-Tdo-K;, in the clause l| Jrsgfltj fcr«rri£0i*« « wrl*s ; as if the
Creed condemned those who said that the Son was not from the
Father's substance, and those also who said that He was not from
the Father's hypostasis or subsistence ; as if a man might hold at
least one of the two without holding the other. And in matter of
fact, he does profess to assign two parties of heretics, who denied
this or that proposition respectively.
Petavius, on the other hand, (de Trin. iv. 1.) considers that the
word vTroo-Totrig, is but another term for oaV/#, and that not two but
one proposition is contained in the clause in question ; the word
i»7ro«rT*5-<s not being publicly recognised in its present meaning till
the Council of Alexandria, in the year 362. Coustant. (Epist.
Pont. Rom. pp. 2?4. 290. 462.) Tillemont, (Memoires S. Denys.
d'Alex. §. 15.) Huet, (Origenian. ii. 2. n. 3.) Thomassin, (de
Incarn. iii. 1 .) and Morinus, (de Sacr. Ordin. ii. 6) take sub-
stantially the same view; while Maranus (Praef. ad S. Basil. §. 1.
torn. 3. ed. Bened.) Natalis Alexander, Hist. (Saec. I. Diss. 22. circ.
fin.) Burton, (Testimonies to the Trinity, No. 71.) and the President
of Magdalen, (Reliqu. Sacr. vol. iii. p. 189-) differ from Petavius,
if they do not agree with Bull.
Bull's principal argument lies in the strong fact, that S. Basil
expressly asserts, that the Council did mean the two terms to be
distinct, and this when he is answering the Sabellians, who
grounded their assertion that there was but one V7ro<rr»r^j on
the alleged fact, the Council had used wo-la, and v-voa-Teta-is indif-
ferently.
Bull refers also to Anastasius, Hodeg. 21. (22. p. 343.?) who says,
that the Nicene Fathers defined that there are three hypostases or
Persons in the Holy Trinity. Petavius considers that he derived
this from Gelasius of Cyzicus, a writer of no great authority; but,
as the passage occurs in Anastasius, they are the words of Andrew
of Samosata. But what is more important, elsewhere Anastasius
quotes a passage from Amphilochius to something of the same effect.
Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 67
c. 10. p. 164. He states it besides himself, c. 9- p- 150. and c. 24. NOTE.
p. 364. In addition,, Bull quotes passages from S. Dionysius of
Alexandria, S. Dionysius of Rome, (vid. above, pp. 44 — 48.
and note i. p. 46.) Eusebius of Caesarea, and afterwards Origen ;
in all of which three hypostases being spoken of, whereas, anti-
quity early or late, never speaks in the same way of three oua-lxi,
it is plain that v7ro<rTct<rn then conveyed an idea which ovrU did
not. To these may be added a passage in Athanasius, in Illud,
Omnia, &c. §. 6.
Bishop Bull adds the following explanation of the two words as
they occur in the Creed : he conceives that the one is intended to
reach the Arians, and the other the Semi-arians ; that the Semi-
arians did actually make a distinction between ova-lot and vTrorTartf,
admitting in a certain sense that the Son was from the vTroa-i-ao-ts of
the Father, while they denied that He was from His ova-ia,.
They then are anathematized in the words e| !rgg«f ovo-w ; and, as
he would seem to mean, the Arians in the l| Irggatj v7roo-Ta.<r&a$.
Now I hope it will not be considered any disrespect to so great
an authority, if I differ from this view, and express my reasons
for doing so.
1. First then, supposing his account of the Semi-arian doctrine
ever so free from objection, granting that they denied the I| ova-las,
and admitted the l| wcndc-tots, yet who are they who, according to
his view, denied the g| v7to<rToi<ri<a$, or said that the Son was \\ iik^us
vTToa-Teio-tas? he does not assign any parties, though he implies
the Arians. Yet though, as is notorious, they denied the !£
ova-tecs, there is nothing to shew that they or any other party
of Arians maintained specifically that the Son was not of the
vTroo-Tetris, or subsistence of the Father. That is, the hypothesis
supported by this eminent divine, does not answer the very ques-
tion which it raises. It professes that those who denied the !£
vTroffTeicnai;, were not the same as those who denied the !£ ovriotg ;
yet it fails to tell us who did deny the e| V7ro<noi<riaq} in a sense
distinct from l| ova-ices.
2. Next, his only proof that the Semi-arians did hold the l| VTTO-
o-Tunas as distinct from the \\ ov<rioc$, lies in the circumstance, that the
three (commonly called) Semi-arian confessions of A.D. 341, 344,
351, known as Mark's of Arethusa, the Macrostiche, and the first
Sirmian, anathematize those who say that the Son is e| tr^as
vyros-Tcio-iai; K*\ p.* Ix. rov dicv, not anathematizing the e| !TS£<*$ ova-ices,
which he infers thence was their own belief. Another explanation
of this passage will be offered presently ; meanwhile, it is well to
observe, that Hilary, in speaking of the confession of Philippopolis
which was taken from Mark's, far from suspecting that the clause
involved an omission, defends it on the ground of its retaining the
Anathema, de Synod. 35. thus implying that e£ Irsgas vxonctG-iaq xcct p*
It fov 6tov was equivalent to l| ir£g«$ woo-Tcio-ias % oiW«$. And it may
be added, that Athanasius in like manner, in his account of the
Nicene Council above translated, (de Decret. §. 20. fin.) when
repeating its anathema, drops the e| woa-rdo-fus altogether, and
reads TOV$ Jg Asyovras e| OVK onuv, , . . . Jj a-c/»)^<*, it l| kitQt&s ovcrtec*;,
civcc&tueni^ii x.. i. A.
F2
68 Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema.
NICEN. 3. Further, Bull gives us no proof whatever that the Semi-arians
PEF- did deny the !£ ov<r^ ; while it is very clear, if it is right to contra-
dict so great a writer, that most of them did not deny it. He says
that it is " certissimum" that the heretics who wrote the three con-
fessions above noticed, that is, the Semi-arians, " nunquam fassos,
nunquam fassuros fuisse filium l| ovri*s, e substantia, Patris pro-
genitum." His reason for not offering any proof for this naturally
is, that Petavius, with whom he is in controversy, maintains it
also, and he makes use of Petavius' s admission against himself.
Now it may seem bold in a writer of this day to differ not only with
Bull but with Petavius ; but the reason for doing so is simple ; it
is because Athanasius asserts the very thing which Petavius and
Bull deny, and Petavius admits that he does; that is, he allows it by
implication when he complains that Athanasius had not got to the
bottom of the doctrine of the Semi-arians, and thought too favour-
ably of them. " Horum Semi-arianorum, quorum antesignanus
fuit Basilius Ancyrae episcopus, prorsus obscura fuit haeresis
ut ne ipse quidem Athanasius satis illam exploratam habuerit." de
Trin. i. x. §. 7.
Now S. Athanasius's words are most distinct and express j "As
to those who receive all else that was defined at Nicaea, but dis-
pute about the ' One in substance' only, we must not feel as
towards enemies .... for, as confessing that the Son is from the sub-
stance of the Father and not of other subsistence, «« T?? <>tW#$ r«y
wfcTgoj won, x.<x.i [th g| Ir'^otg vTcotrToicriug TO* vlov, . . . they are not far
from receiving the phrase ' One in substance* also. Such is Basil
of Ancyra, in what he has written about the faith.'' de Syn.
§. 41; — a passage, not only express for the matter in hand, but
remarkable too, as apparently using vTroa-rans and ova-U as sy-
nonymous, which is the main point which Bull denies. What
follows in Athanasius is equally to the purpose: he urges the
Semi-arians to accept the cpctva-uv, in consistency, because they
maintain the l\ ova-t'etf and the ip**vr*i would not sufficiently
secure it.
Moreover Hilary, while defending the Semi-arian decrees of
Ancyra or Sirmium, says expressly, that according to them, among
other truths, "non creatura est Filius genitus, sed a naturd Patris
indiscreta substantia est." de Syn. 2?.
Petavius, however, in the passage to which Bull appeals, refers
in proof of his view of Semi-arianism, to those Ancyrene do-
cuments, which Epiphanius has preserved, Haer. 73, and which
he considers to shew, that according to the Semi-arians the Son
was not \% ova-las TOV w#Tg<?«. He says, that it is plain from their
own explanations that they considered our Lord to be, not IK T%$
ov<riots, but IK T?« opotaTVTCf [[he does not say VTrwrda-iuq, as Bull
wishes]] TOV TTfltTgaj and that, w^yiicf, yivwiitx.y, which was one of the
divine Inqyueu, as creation, t> *T<S-T;XJJ, was another. Yet surely
Epiphanius does not bear out this representation better than
Athanasius; since the Semi-arians, whose words he reports,
speak of c< viov oftotov KOC.I X.OC.T oiKrtctv IK TOV Trdrfa, p. 825. b. 6>?
* 0-otpt'et TOU o-otyov viog, ovytet ovo-iotf. p. 85". C. KXT' ovyioty viov rov
0lov KCCI TTflti^o;, p, 851. C. l^ovcricf, opov x.xi oixrlce. vit,7£>$ povoyivovs viov.
Note on lite word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 69
p. 858. d. besides the strong word yv»jV<o;, ibid, and Athan. de NOTE.
Syn. §.41. not to insist on other of their statements.
The same fact is brought before us even in a more striking way
in the conference at Constantinople, A. D. 360, before Constantius,
between the Anomoeans and Semi-arians, where the latter, ac-
cording to Theodoret, shew no unwillingness to acknowledge
even the opowe-ioy, because they acknowledge the l| ovriag. When
the Anomoeans wished the former condemned, Silvanus of Tarsus
said, " If God the Word be not out of nothing, nor a creature, nor
of other substance, ovriot;, therefore is He one in substance, o
with God who begot Him, as God from God, and Light from Light,
and He has the same nature with His Father." Hist. ii. 23. Here
again it is observable, as in the passage from Athanasius above,
that, while apparently reciting the Nicene Anathema, he omits l|
irtgw; vTroTTcirtas, as if it were superfluous to mention a synonyme.
At the same time there certainly is reason to suspect that the
Semi-arians approximated towards orthodoxy as time went on ;
and perhaps it is hardly fair to determine what they held at
Nicaea by their statements at Ancyra, though to the latter Peta-
vius appeals. Several of the most eminent among them, as Mele-
tius, Cyril, and Eusebius of Samosata conformed soon after ; on
the other hand in Eusebius, who is their representative at Nicaea,
it will perhaps be difficult to find a clear admission of the !£ ov<rt*$.
But at any rate he does not maintain the l| vTroo-Tcirws , which Bull's
theory requires.
On various grounds then, because the Semi-arians as a body did
not deny the g| 6v<rict<;, nor confess the e| vTroa-i do-tug, nor the Arians
deny it, there is reason for declining Bishop Bull's explanation
of these words as they occur in the Creed ; and now let us
turn to the consideration of the authorities on which that ex-
planation rests.
As to Gelasius, Bull himself does not insist upon his testimony,
and Anastasius is too late to be of authority. The passage indeed
which he quotes from Amphilochius is important, but as he was a
friend of St. Basil, perhaps it does very much increase the weight
of St. Basil's more distinct and detailed testimony to the same
point, and no one can say that that weight is inconsiderable.
Yet there is evidence the other way which overbalances it.
Bull, who complains of Petavius's rejection of St. Basil's testi-
mony concerning a Council which was held before his birth,
cannot maintain his own explanation of its Creed without rejecting
Athanasius's testimony respecting the doctrine of his contempo-
raries, the Semi-arians ; and moreover the more direct evidence,
as we shall see, of the Council of Alexandria, A.D. 362, S. Jerome,
Basil of Ancyra, and Socrates.
First, however, no better comment upon the sense of the Coun-
cil can be required than the incidental language of Athanasius and
Dthers, who in a foregoing extract exchanges ovc-iet for vTroa-rcta-^
n a way which is natural only on the supposition that he used
hem as synonymes. Elsewhere, as we have seen, he omits the
word $ virer7eie-teis in the Nicene Anathema, while Hilary considers
he Anathema sufficient with that omission.
70 Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema,
NICEN. In like manner Hilary expressly translates the clause in the
DBF. Creed by ex altera substantiA vel essentia. Fragm. ii. 27- And
somewhat in the same way Eusebius says in his letter, e| Irigae?
T<VO£ VTTOO-TotyWS Tt KCtl OVTIOt$.
But further, Athanasius says expressly, ad Afros — " Hypostasis
is substance, ovo-ia, and means nothing else than simply being,
which Jeremiah calls existence when he says," &c. §.4. It is
true, he elsewhere speaks of three Hypostases, but this only
shews that he attached no fixed sense to the word. This
is just what I would maintain; its sense must be determined
by the context, and, whereas it always stands in all Catholic
writers for the Una Res, (as the 4th Lateran speaks,) which
ova-let, denotes, when Atbanasius says, '•' three hypostases," he
takes the word to mean ova-lot in that particular sense in which
it is three, and when he makes it synonymous with ova-lx, he
uses it to signify Almighty God in that sense in which He
is one.
Leaving Athanasius, we have the following evidence concerning
the history of the word vTroa-rota-ig. St. Jerome says, " The whole
school of secular learning understanding nothing else by hypo-
stasis than usia, substance." Ep. xv. 4. Where, speaking of the
Three Hypostases he uses the strong language, " If you desire it,
then be a new faith framed after the Nicene, and let the orthodox
confess in terms like the Arian."
In like manner, Basil of Ancyra, George, and the other Semi-
arians, say distinctly, " This hypostasis our Fathers called sub-
stance," ova-let. Epiph. Haer. 74. 12. fin.; in accordance with which
is the unauthorized addition to the Sardican Epistle, " vTrorrarH,
jjv etvrot ol etl^Titcot ovrjetv ir(>o<rayo£Svov(ri." Theod. Hist. ii. 6.
If it be said that Jerome from his Roman connection, and Basil
and George as Semi-arians, would be led by their respective
theologies for distinct reasons thus to speak, it is true, and may
have led them to too broad a statement of the fact ; but then on the
other hand it was in accordance also with the theology of St. Basil,
so strenuous a defender of the formula of the Three Hypostases,
to suppose that the Nicene Fathers meant to distinguish viroa-Tccwf
from ova-lot, in their anathema.
Again, Socrates informs us that, though there was some dispute
about hypostasis at Alexandria shortly before the Nicene Council,
yet the Council itself "devoted not a word to the question." Hist,
iii. 7.; which hardly consists with its having intended to rule that
I| irggg? vKotrrcia-suq was distinct from i% irgg*? ova-lx/;.
And in like manner the Council of Alexandria, A.D. 362, in
deciding that the sense of Hypostasis was an open question, not
only from the very nature of the case goes on the supposition
that the Nicene Council had not closed it, but says so in
words again and again in its Synodal Letter. If the Nicene
Council had already used " hypostasis" in its present sense, what
remained to Athanasius at Alexandria but to submit to it?
Indeed the history of this Council is perhaps the strongest
argument against the supposed discrimination of the two terms by
the Council of Nicaea. Bull can only meet it by considering that
Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema. 71
an innovation upon the " veterem vocabuli usum" began at the NOTE.
date of the Council of Sardica, though Socrates mentions the ~~
dispute as existing at Alexandria before the Nicene Council, Hist,
iii. 4. 5. while the supposititious confession of Sardica professes to
have received the doctrine of the one hypostasis by tradition as
Catholic.
Nor is the use of the word in earlier times inconsistent with
these testimonies; though it occurs so seldom, in spite of its being
a word of St. Paul, that testimony is our principal evidence.
Socrates's remarks deserve to be quoted; " Those among the
Greeks who have treated of the Greek philosophy, have defined
substance, ova-tot, in many ways, but they had made no mention at all
of hypostasis. Irenaeus the Grammarian, in his alphabetical Atticist,
even calls the term barbarous; because it is not used by any of the
ancients, and if any where found, it does not mean what it is now
taken for. Thus in the Phoenix of Sophocles it means an e am-
bush ;' but in Menander, ' preserves/ as if one were to call the
wine-lees in a cask f hypostasis/ However it must be observed,
that, in spite of the old philosophers being silent about the term,
the more modern continually use it for substance, «tW<*?." Hist,
iii. 7- The word principally occurs in Origen among Ante-Nicene
writers, and he, it must be confessed, uses it, as far as the context
decides its sense, to mean subsistence or person. In other words, it
was the word of a certain school in the Church, which afterwards
was accepted by the Church ; but this proves nothing about
the sense in which it was used at Nicaea. The three Hypo-
stases are spoken of by Origen, his pupil Dionysius, as after-
wards by Eusebius of Caesarea, (though he may notwithstand-
ing have considered hypostasis synonymous with substance,) and
Athanasius ; (Origen in Joan. ii. 6. Dionys. ap. Basil de Sp S. n. 72.
Euseb. ap. Socr.i. 23. Athan. in Illud Omnia, &c. 6.) and the Two
Hypostases of the Father and the Son, by Origen, Ammonius, and
Alexander, (Origen in Cels. viii. 2. Ammon. ap. Caten. in Joan.
x. 30. Alex. ap. Theod. i. 3. p. 740.) As to the passage in which
two hypostases are spoken of in Dionysius's letter to Paul of
Samosata, that letter certainly is not genuine, as might be shewn
on a fitting occasion, though it is acknowledged by very great
authorities.
I confess that to my mind there is an antecedent probability
that the view which has here been followed is correct J udging by
the general history of doctrine, one should not expect that the formal
ecclesiastical meaning of the word should have obtained every
where so early. Nothing is more certain than that the doctrines
themselves of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation were de-
veloped, or, to speak more definitely, that the propositions containing
them were acknowledged, from the earliest times ; but the parti-
cularterms which now belongto them are almost uniformly of a later
date. Ideas were brought out, but technical phrases did not obtain.
Not that these phrases did not exist, but either not as technical, or
in use in a particular School or Church, or with a particular writer, or
as «V«| Agyaf«»«, as words discussed, nay resisted, perhap .3 used by
some local Council, and then at length accepted generally from their
72 Note on the word Hypostasis in the Nicene Anathema.
NIC EN. obvious propriety. Thus the words of the Schools pass into the
PEF* service of the Catholic Church. Instead then of the word vTrorTottm;
being, as Maran says, received in the East " summo consensu,"
from the date of Noetus or at least Sabellius, or of Bull's opinion
" apud Calholicos Dionysii aetate ralum el fixum illud fuisse, tres
esse in divinis hypostases," I would consider that the present
use of the word was in the first instance Alexandrian,, and that
it was little more than Alexandrian till the middle of the 4th
century.
Lastly, it comes to be considered how the two words are to be
accounted for in the Creed, if they have not distinct senses.
Constant supposes that i| ovriett was added to explain || vx*rT*n*f}
lest the latter should be taken in a Sabellian sense. On which we
may perhaps remark besides, that the reason why viroFTotris was
selected as the principal term was, that it was agreeable to the
Westerns as well as admitted by the Orientals. Thus, by way of
contrast, we find the second General Council, at which there were no
Latins, speaking of Three Hypostases, and Pope Damasus and the
Roman Council speakinga few years sooner of the Holy Ghost as of
the same hypostasis and usia with the Father and the Son. Theod.
Hist. ii. I?. Many things go to make this probable. For instance,
Constant acutely points out, though Maran and the President of Mag-
dalen dissent, that this probably was a point of dispute between
the two Dionysii ; the Bishop of Alexandria asserting, as we know
he did assert, Three Hypostases, the Bishop of Rome protesting
in reply against " Three partitive Hypostases," as involving
tritheism, and his namesake rejoining, "If because there are
Three Hypostases, any say that they are partitive, three there
are, though they like it not." Again, the influence of the West
shews itself in the language of Athanasius, who, contrary to the
custom of his Church, of Origen, Dionysius, and his own
immediate patron and master Alexander, so varies his own use of
the word, as to make his writings almost an example of that
freedom which he vindicated in the Council of Alexandria.
Again, when Hosius went to Alexandria before the Nicene
Council, and a dispute arose with reference to Sabellianism about
the words viroFretFtg and «w-/«, what is this too, but the collision of
East and West ? It should be remembered moreover that Hosius
presided at Nicaea, a Latin in an Eastern city ; and again at
Sardica, where, though the decree in favour of the One Hypostasis
was not passed, it seems clear from the history that he was resisting
persons with whom in great measure he agreed. Further, the
same consideration accounts for the omission of the g| ovrUs from
the Confession of Mark and the two which follow, on which Bull
relies in proof that the Semi-arians rejected this formula. These
three Semi-arian Creeds, and these only, were addressed to the
Latins, and therefore their compilers naturally select that synonyme
which was most pleasing to them, as the means of securing a
hearing ; just as Athanasius on the other hand in his de Decretis,
writing to the Greeks, omits vjr«*-T«eVg»j, and writes
EPISTLE OF S. ATHANASIUS,
ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA,
CONCERNING THE COUNCILS HELD AT ARIMINUM IN ITALY AND
AT SELEUCIA IN ISAURIA.
CHAP. I.
HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
Reason why two Councils were called. Inconsistency and folly of calling
any ; and of the style of the Arian formularies ; occasion of the Nicene
Council; proceedings at Ariminum ; Letter of the Council to Constantius;
its decree. Proceedings at Seleucia; reflections on the conduct of the
Arians.
1. PERHAPS news has reached even yourselves concerning CHAP.
the Council, which is at this time the subject of general con-
versation; for letters both from the Emperor and the Prefects"
were circulated far and wide for its convocation. However,
you take that interest in the events which have occurred,
that I have determined upon giving you an account of what
I have seen myself b or have ascertained, which may save you
from the suspense attendant on the reports of others ; and
this the more, because there are parties who are in the prac-
tice of misrepresenting what is going on.
2. At Nicsea then, which had been fixed upon, the Council
did not meet, but a second edict0 was issued, convening the
a There were at this time four prse- b From these words Tillemont and
torian prefects, who divided between Gibbon infer that Athanasius was pre-
them this administration of the Em- sent at least at Seleucia, but, as Mont-
pire. They had been lately made merely faucon observes, such a supposition is
civil officers, Constantine having sup- not required by the words, and is in
pressed the celebrated troops which they itself improbable.
used to command. At Ariminum, one of c The Council was originally to have
them, Taurus, was present, and was been held at Nicsea, but the party of
the instrument of the Emperor in over- Basil did not like a second meeting in
awing the Council. the same place, and Nicomedia was
74 Circumstances of the calling of the Tivo Councils.
COUNC. Western Bishops at Ariminum in Italy, and the Eastern at
AA™ Seleucia the Rugged, as it is called, in Isauria. The professed
SELEU. reason of such a meeting was to treat of the faith touching our
Lord Jesus Christ ; and those who alleged it, were Ursacius,
Valensd, and one Germinius6 from Pannonia ; and from Syria,
Acacius, EudoxiuV, and Patrophilus of Scythopolisg. These
men who had always been of the Arian party, and understood
neither how they believe or whereof they affirm, and were
silently deceiving first one and then another, and scattering
« supr. the second sowing1 of their heresy, influenced some persons of
note'k. consequence, and the Emperor Constantius among them,
*infr. being a heretic2, on some pretence about the Faith, to call a
note p. Council ; under the idea that they should be able to put into
substituted. The greater number of
Bishops had set out, when an earth-
quake threw the city into ruins. Nicaea
was then substituted again at Basil's
wish, Soz. iv. 16. but it was considered
too near the seat of the earthquake to
be safe. Then the Eusebian or Aca-
cian influence prevailed, and the Coun-
cil was divided into two ; but at first
Ancyra, Basil's see, was to have been
one of them, (where a celebrated Coun-
cil of Semi-arians actually was held
at the time.) Hil. de Syn. 8. but this
was changed for Seleucia. A delegacy
of Bishops from each Province was
summoned to Nicomeilia ; but to
Nicsea, all Bishops whatever, whose
health admitted of the journey, ac-
cording to Sozomen; but Hilary says,
only one or two from each province of
Gaul were summoned to Ariminum ;
he himself was at Seleucia, under com»
pulsion of the local magistrate, being in
exiie there for the faith, Sulp. Sev.
ii. 57.
d Ursacius, Bishop of Singidon, and
Valens, Bishop of Mursa, are generally
mentioned together. They were pupils
of Arius ; and as such are called young
by Athan. ad Ep. JEg. 7. by Hilary ad
Const, i. 5. (imperitis et improbis duo-
bus adolescentibus,) and by the Council
of Sardica, ap. Hilar. Fragm. ii. 12.
They first appear at the Council of
Tyre, A. D. 335. The Council of Sar-
tlica deposed them ; in 349, they pub-
licly retracted their charges against
Athanasius, who has preserved their
letters, Apol. contr. Arian. 58. Valens
was the more prominent of the two ;
he was a favourite Bishop of Con-
stantius, was an extreme Arian in
his opinions, and the chief agent at
Ariminum in effecting the lapse of the
Latin Fathers.
e Germinius was made Bishop of
Sirmium by the Eusebians in 351, in-
stead of Photinus whom they deposed
for a kind of Sabellianism. However,
he was obliged in 358 to sign the
Semi-arian formula of Ancyra ; yet he
was an active Eusebian again at Ari-
minum. At a later date he approached
very nearly to Catholicism.
f Acacius has been mentioned, p. 7.
note p. Eudoxius is said to have been
a pupil of Lucian, Arius's Master,
though the dates scarcely admit it.
Eustathius, Catholic Bishop of Antioch,
whom the Eusebians subsequently de-
posed, refused to admit him into orders.
Afterwards he was made Bishop of
Germanicia in Syria, by his party. He
was present at the Council of Antioch
in 341 , spoken of infra, $. 22. and carried
into the West in 345, the fifth Confes-
sion, called the Long, f<taz£oir<ri%a;. infr.
§. 26. He afterwards passed in succes-
sion to the sees of Antioch, (vid. supr.
p. 1. note a.) and Constantinople, and
baptized the Emperor Valens into the
Arian profession.
g Patrophilus was one of the original
Arian party, and took share in all their
principal acts, but there is nothing
very distinctive in his history. Sozo-
men assigns to these six Bishops the
scheme of dividing the Council into
two, Hist.iv. 16. and Valens undertook
to manage the Latins, Acacius the
Greeks.
No necessity for them. 75
the shade the Nicene Council, aud prevail upon all to turn CHAP.
round, and to establish irreligion every where instead of the L_
Truth.
3. Nowhere I marvel first, and think that I shall carry every §. 2.
thinking man whatever with me, that, whereas a Catholic
Council had been fixed, and all were looking forward to it,
it was all of a sudden divided in two, so that one part met
here, and the other there. However, this would seem provi-
dential, in order in the respective Councils to exhibit the faith
without guile or corruption of the one party, and to expose
the dishonesty and duplicity of the other. Next, this too was
011 the mind of myself and my true brethren here, and made
us anxious, the impropriety of this great gathering which
we saw in progress ; for what pressed so much, that the whole
world was to be put into confusion, and those who at the time
bore the profession of clerks, should run about far and near,
seeking how best to learn to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ?
Certainly, if they were believers already, they would not have
been seeking, as though they were not. And to the catechu-
mens, this was no small scandal ; but to the heathen, it was
something more than common, and even furnished broad
merriment b, that Christians, as if waking out of sleep at this
time of day, should be making out how they were to believe
concerning Christ ; while their professed clerks, though
claiming deference from their flocks, as teachers, were infidels
on their own shewing, in that they were seeking what they
had not. And the party of Ursacius, who were at the
bottom of all this, did not understand what wrath they were
storing up against themselves, as our Lord says by His
saints, Woe unto them, through whom My Name is bias- is. 52, 5.
phemed among the Gentiles; and by His own mouth in the24°m
Gospels, Whoso shall offend one of these little ones, it were Mat.18,
better for him that a millstone were hanged about his
neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea,
h The heathen Auimianus speaks of bius, " that at length in the very midst
" the troops of Bishops hurrying to and of the theatres of the unbelievers, the
fro at the public expense," and " the solemn matter* of divine teaching were
Synods, in their efforts to bring over the subjected to the basest mockery." in
whole religiontotheirside,beingtheruin vit. Const.ii 61. Heathen Philosophers
of the posting establishments." Hist, attended the Nicene Council, " from
xxi. 16. " The spectacle proceeded to an interest to learn what the Christian
that pitch of indecency," says Euse- doctrine was." Soz. i. 18.
76
Absurdity of dating the Catholic Faith.
COUNC. than, as Luke adds, that he should offend one of these little
ARIM.
AND
SELEU
ones.
4. What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the
§. 3. Catholic Church ', that they should search after faith now, and
should prefix this year's Consulate to their profession of it ?
Yet Ursacius, and Valens, and Germinius, and their friends
have done, what never took place, never was heard of among
Christians. After putting into writing what it pleased them
to believe, they prefix to it the Consulate, and the month and
the day of the current year k ; thereby to shew all thinking
men, that their faith dates, not from of old, but now, from the
reign of Constantius l ; for whatever they write has a view to
their own heresy. Moreover, though pretending to write
1 " Who is there, who when he
heard, upon his first catechisings, that
God had a Son, and had made all
things in His proper Word, did not so
understand it in that sense which we
now intend ? who, when the vile Arian
heresy began, but at once, on hearing
its teachers, was startled, as if they
taught strange things ?" Orat. ii. §. 34.
And Hilary with the same sense, u I
call the God of heaven and earth to
witness, that, before I had heard either
term, I always felt concerning the two
words that by ' one in substance' ought to
be understood ' like in substance,' that is,
that nothing can be like Him in nature,
but That which is of the same nature.
Regenerated long since, and for a while
a Bishop, yet I never heard the Ni-
cene Creed till I was in exile, but
Gospels and Apostles intimated to me
the meaning of ' one in substance' and
' like in substance.' " de Syn. 91. vid.
also ad Const, ii. 7.
k " Faith is made a thing of dates
rather than Gospels, while it is written
down by years, and is not measured by
the confession of baptism." ad Const, ii.
4. " We determine yearly and monthly
creeds concerning God, we repent of
our determinations ; we defend those who
repent, we anathematize those whom we
have defended ; we condemn our own
doings in those of others, or others in
us, and gnawing each other, we are
well nigh devoured one of another."
ibid. 5.
1 " Who are you? whence and when
came ye ? what do ye on my property
being none of mine ? by what right, 6
Marcion, cuttest thou my wood? by what
license, 0 Valentinus, turnest thou my
springs? by what power, O Apelles,
movest thou mylandmarks? Mineispos-
session. . . I possess of old, I have prior
possession. . .1 am heir of the Apostles."
Tertull. de Prsescr. 37. Tardily for me
hath this time of day put forth these, in
my judgment, most impious doctor?.
Full late hath that faith of mine, which
Thou hast instructed, encountered these
Masters. Before these names were
heard of, I thus believed in Thee, I thus
was new born by Thee, and thenceforth
I thus am Thine." Hil.de Trin.vi. 21.
' What heresy hath ever burst forth, but
under the name of some certain men,
in some certain place, and at some cer-
tain time ? who ever set up any heresy,
who first divided not himself from the
consent of the universality and antiquity
of the Catholic Church?" Vincent Lir.
Commonit.24. " I will tell thee my mind
briefly and plainly, that thou shouldest
remain in that Church which, being
founded by the Apostles, endures even to
this day. When thou hearest that those
who are called Christ's, are named, not
after Jesus Christ, but after some one,
say Marcionites,Valentinians, &c.know
then it is not Christ's Church, but the
synagogue of Antichrist. For by the
very fact that they are formed after-
wards, they shew that they are those
who the Apostle foretold should come."
Jerom. in Lucif. 27. " If the Church
was not. . . .whence hath Donatus ap-
peared ? from what soil has he sprung ?
out of what sea hath he emerged ? from
what heaven hath he fallen ?" August,
de Bapt. contr. Don. iii. 3.
No authority for it from Scripture. 77
about the Lord, they nominate another sovereign for them- CHAP.
selves, Constantius, who has bestowed on them this reign — - —
of irreligion m ; and they who deny that the Son is everlasting,
have called him Eternal Emperor; such foes of Christ are
they in behalf of irreligion.
5. But perhaps the dates in the holy Prophets form their
excuse for the Consulate ; so bold a pretence, however, will serve
but to publish more fully their ignorance of the subject. For
the prophecies of the sacred writers do indeed specify their
times; (for instance, Esaias and Osee lived in the days of
Ozias, Joatham, Achaz, and Ezekias ; Jeremias, in the days
of Josias ; Ezekiel and Daniel prophesied unto Cyrus and
Darius ; and others in other times ;) yet they were not laying
the foundations of divine religion ; it was before them, and
was always, for before the foundation of the world had God
prepared it for us in Christ. Nor were they signifying the
respective dates of their own faith; for they had been be-
lievers before these dates, which did but belong to their own
preaching. And this preaching chiefly related to the Saviour's
coming, and secondarily to what was to happen to Israel and
the nations ; and the dates denoted not the commencement
of faith, as I said before, but of the prophets themselves, that
m A than, says, that after Eusebius had judgments. But now a new spectacle, and
taken up the patronage of the heresy, this the discovery of the Arian heresy,"
he made no progress till he had gained &c. §. 52. Again, " In what then is he
the Court, Hist. Arian. 66. shewing behind Antichrist? what more will he
that it was an act of external power by do when he comes ? or rather, on his
which Arianism grew, not an inward coming will he not find the way by [Con-
movement in the Church, which indeed stantius] prepared for him unto his de-
loudly protested against the Emperor's ceiving without effort? for he too is to
proceeding. " If Bishops are to judge," claim the judgments for the court instead
he says shortly before, " what has the of the Churches, and of these he istobe-
Eraperor to do with this matter? if the come head." §. 76. And so Hosius to
Emperor is to threaten, what need of Constantius, "Cease, I charge thee, and
men styled Bishops ? where in the world remember that thou art a mortal man.
was such a thing heard of? where had Fear the day of judgment ; keep thyself
the Church's judgment its force from clear against it. Interfere not with things
the Emperor, or his sentence was at ecclesiastical, nor be the man to charge
all recognised? many Councils have us in a matter of the kind ; rather learn
been before this, many judgments them thyself from us. God has put into
of the Church, but neither the Fa- thy hand the kingdom ; to us He hath
thers ever argued with the Emperor intrusted the things of the Church ; and
about them, nor the Emperor meddled as he who is traitorous to thy rule speaks
with the concerns of the Church. Paul against God who has thus ordained, so
the Apostle had friends of Caesar's fear thou, lest drawing to thyself the
household, and in his Epistle he saluted things of the Church, thou fallest be-
the Philippians in their name, but he neath a great accusation." A pud Athan.
took them not to him as partners in his ibid. 44. vid. infr. p. 90. note p.
78 Difference between decree of faith and rule of discipline.
COUNC. is, when it was they thus prophesied. But our modern sages,
AND ' not in historical narration, nor in prediction of the future, but,
SELEU. after writing, "The Catholic Faith was published," imme-
diately add the Consulate and the month and the date ; that,
as the sacred writers specified the dates of their histories, and
of their own ministries, so these may mark the date of their
own faith. And would that they had written, touching
" their own n ;" (for it does date from to-day ;) and had not made
their essay as touching " the Catholic," for they did not write,
" Thus we believe," but " the Catholic Faith was published."
§.4. 6. The boldness then of their design shews how little they
understand the subject; while the novelty of their phrase befits
their heresy. For thus they shew, when it was they began
their own faith, and that from that same time present they
would have it proclaimed. And as according to the Evan-
gelist Luke, there was made a decree concerning the taxing,
and this decree before was not, but began from those days in
which it was made by its framer, they also in like manner, by
writing, " The Faith is now published," shewed that the
sentiments of their heresy are young, and were not before.
But if they add " of the Catholic Faith," they fall before they
know it into the extravagance of the Phrygians, and say
with them, " To us first was revealed," and " from us dates
the Faith of Christians." And as those inscribe it with the
\ vid. names of Maximilla and Montanus1, so do these with " Con-
, Sovereign," instead of Christ. If, however, as they
$.47. would have it, the faith dates from the present Consulate,
what must the Fathers do, and the blessed Martyrs? nay,
what will they themselves do with their own catechumens,
who departed to rest before this Consulate ? how will they
wake them up, that so they may obliterate their former
lessons, and may sow in turn the seeming discoveries which
they have now put into writing0? So ignorant they are on
n " He who speaketh of his own, nius at Seleucia cried out, " If to pub-
Ix, ruv ftieat, speaketh a lie." Athan. lish day after day our own private
contr. Apoll. i. fin. " They used to call (£«*») will, be a profession of faith, ac-
the Church a virgin," says Hegesippus, curacy of truth will fail us." Socr.
" for it was not yet denied by pro- ii. 40.
fane doctrines ---- the Simonists, Dosi- ° " However the error was, certain-
thians, &c. . . .each privately (ftiut) and ly error reigned so long as heresies were
separately has brought in a private opi- not. Truth needed a rescue, and looked
nion." ap. Euseb. Hist. iv. 22. Sophro- out for Marcionites and Valentinians.
Reasons for convening the Nicene Council.
79
the subject ; with no knowledge but that of making excuses, CHAP.
and those unbecoming and unplausible, and carrying with — '- —
them their own refutation.
7. As to the Nicene Council, it was not a common meeting, §. 5.
but convened upon a pressing necessity, and for a reasonable
object. The Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians, were
out of order in celebrating the Feast, and kept Easter with
the Jews p ; on the other hand, the Arian heresy had risen up
against the Catholic Church, and found supporters in the
Eusebians, who were both zealous for the heresy, and con-
ducted the attack upon religious people. This gave .occasion
for an Ecumenical1 Council, that the feast might be every 'suPr«
where celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was note o.
springing up might be anathematized. It took place then ;
and the Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pronounced the
Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist q, and drew up
Meanwhile, gospelling was nought, faith
was nought, nought was the baptism of
so many thousand thousand, so many
works of faith performed, so many
virtues, so many gifts displayed, so
many priesthoods, so many ministries
exercised, nay, so many martyrdoms
crowned." Tertull. Praescr.29. '"Pro-
fane novelties,' which if we receive, of
necessity the faith of our blessed ances-
tors, either all or a great part of it must
be overthrown ; the faithful people of
all ages and times, all holy saints, all
the chaste, all the continent, all the
virgins, all the Clergy, the Deacons,
the Priests, so many thousands of con-
fessors, so great armies of martyrs, so
many famous populous cities and com-
monwealths, so many islands, provinces,
kings, tribes, kingdoms, nations, to con-
clude, almost now the whole world, in-
corporated by the Catholic Faith to
Christ their head, must needs be said,
so many hundred years, to have been
ignorant, to have erred, to have blas-
pfceraed, to have believed they knew not
what." Vine. Comm. 24. " O the ex-
travagance ! the wisdom, hidden after
Christ's coming, they announce to us to-
day, which is a thing to draw tears.
For if the faith began thirty years since,
while near four hundred are past since
Christ was manifested, nought hath
been our gospel that long while, and
nought our faith, and fruitlessly have
martyrs been martyred, and fruitlessly
have such and so great rulers ruled the
people. Greg. Naz. ad Cledon. Ep.
102. p. 97.
P This seems to have been an inno-
vation in these countries of about fifty
years old, or from about the year 276. It
is remarkable, that the Quartodeciman
custom had come to an end in Procon-
sular Asia, where it had existed from
St. John's time, before it began in Syria.
Tillemont refers the change to Anato-
lius of Laodicea ; the writer of this note
has attempted in a former work to prove
Paul of Samosata the author of it.
9 trgfyopos, prsecursor, is almost a
received word for the predicted apostasy
or apostate, (vid. note on St. Cyril's Cat.
xv. 9. also infr. note p.) but the dis-
tinction was not always carefully drawn
between the apostate and the Anti-
christ. Constantius is called Antichrist
by Athan. Hist. Arian. 67. his acts are
the fgoaiftiev xo) <ragct<rx,ivv> of Anti-
christ. Hist. Arian. 70. fin. 71. and 80.
Constantius is the image, i!*/wv, of Anti-
christ. 74. and 80. and shews the like-
ness, opoiafia, of the malignity of Anti-
christ. 75. vid. also 77. #efy"/*at 77. "Let
Christ be expected, for Antichrist is in
possession." Hilar. contr. Const, init.
Constantius, Antichrist, ibid. 6. Speak-
ing of Auxentius, the Arian Bishop of
Milan, he says, " Of one thing I warn
you, beware of Antichrist ; it is ill that
CoUNC,
SELEU,
' infr.
p. 84.
note c.
80 Councils declare the ancient Apostolical faith.
a suitable formula against it. And yet in this, many as they
are> they ventured on nothing like the proceedings of these
three or four men8. Without prefixing Consulate, month, and
day, they wrote concerning the Easter, " It seemed good as
follows," for it did then seem good that there should be a
general compliance ; but about the faith they wrote not, " It
seemed good," but, " Thus believes the Catholic Church ;"
and thereupon they confessed how the faith lay, in order to
shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apo-
stolical ; and what they wrote down, was no discovery of
theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles1.
a love of walls has seized you, it is 511
that your veneration for God's Church
lies in houses and edifices ; it is ill that
under this plea ye insinuate the name
of peace. Is there any doubt that Anti-
christ is to sit in these ? Mountains
and woods and lakes and prisons and
pits are to me more safe ; for in these
did prophets, sojourning or sunk, still
by God's spirit prophesy." contr. Aux.
12. Lucifer calls Constantius precursor
Antichristi. p. 89. possessed with the
spirit of Antichrist, p. 219. friend of
Antichrist, p. 259. Again, S. Jerome,
writing against Jovinian, says that he
who so says that there are no differences
of rewards is Antichrist, ii. 21. S. Leo,
alluding to 1 John 4, 10. calls Nesto-
rius and Eutyches, Antichristi prsecur-
sores. Ep. 75. p. 1022. Again, Anti-
christ, whoever opposes what the
Church has once settled, with an allu-
sion to opposition to the see of St. Peter.
Ep. 156. c. 2. Anastasius speaks of
the ten horns of Monophysitism, Hodeg.
6. also 8. and 24. and calls Severus,
Monophysite Bp. of Antioch, Anti-
christ, for usurping the judicial powers
of Christ and His Church, ibid. p. 92.
r " They know not to be reverent even
to their leaders. And this is why com-
monly schisms exist not among heretics ;
because while they are, they are not vi-
sible. Schism is their very unity. lam
a liar if they do not dissent from their
own rules, while every man among them
equally alters at his private judgment
(suo arbitrio) what he has received, just
as he who gave to them composed it at
his private judgment. The progress of
the thing is true to its nature and its
origin. What was a right to Valenti-
nus, was a right to Valentinians, what
to Marcion was to the Marcionites, to
innovate on the faith at their private
judgment. As soon as any heresy is tho-
roughly examined, it is found in many
points dissenting from its parent. Those
parents for the most part have no
Churches ; they roam about without
Mother, without see, bereaved of the
faith, without a country, without a
home." Tertull. Prsescr. 42. At Seleu-
cia Acacius said, u If the Nicene faith
has been altered once and many times
since, no reason why we should not
dictate another faith now." Eleusius
the Semi-arian answered, " This Coun-
cil is called, not to learn what it does
not know, not to receive a faith which
it does not possess, but walking in the
faith of the Father," (meaning the Semi-
arian Council of the Dedication, A.D.
341. vid. infr. §. 22.) " it swerves not
from it in life or death." On this So-
crates (Hist. ii. 40.) observes, " How
call you those who met at Antioch
Fathers, O Eleusius, you who deny
their Fathers ? for those who met at
Nicsea, and unanimously professed the
Consubstantial, might more properly
receive the name, &c. But if the
Bishops at Antioch set at nought their
own fathers, those who come after
are blindly following parricides ; and
how did they receive a valid ordination
from them, whose faith they set at
nought as reprobate ? But if those had
not the Holy Ghost, which cometh
through laying on of hands, neither did
these receive the priesthood ; for did
they receive from those who have not
wherewith to give ?"
s o\i-yat -rmj, says Pope Julius, ap.
Athan. Apol. 34. lyga^elv THIS vt^i xi-
, says Athan. ad Ep, /Eg. 5.
New Councils for new heresies. 81
8. But the Councils which they have set in motion, what co- CHAP.
lourable pretext have they1 ? If any new heresy has risen since 1 ' •
the Arian, let them tell us the positions which it has devised, &g. 10.
and who are its inventors ? and in their own formula, let
them anathematize the heresies antecedent to this Council of
theirs, among which is the Arian, as the Nicene Fathers did,
that it may be made appear that they too have some cogent
reason for saying what is novel2. But if no such event has 2vid-
happened, and they have it not to shew, but rather they notes b
themselves are uttering heresies, as holding Arius's irreligion, andc-
and are exposed day by day, and day by day shift their
ground *, what need is there of Councils, when the Nicene is
sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest, which
it has condemned one and all by means of the sound faith ?
For even the notorious Aetius, who was surnamed godless3,* ^J^
vaunts not of the discovering of any mania of his own, but
under stress of weather has been wrecked upon Arianism,
himself and the persons whom he has beguiled. Vainly then
do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded
Councils for the faithVsake; for divine Scripture is sufficient
above all things ; but if a Council be needed on the point,
there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene
Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine
so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot
but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ
announced in divine Scripture *. 4 vid. p.
9. Having therefore no reason on their side, but being in dif- \ ' g0.
lenity whichever way they turn, in spite of their pretences, they note c*
have nothing left but to say; " Forasmuch as we contradict $' '
1 vid. de Deer. init. and §. 4. and p. 2. sometimes with rash presumption, they
note c. We shall have abundant in- allow such things as seem uncertain, at
stances of the Arian changes as this another time of pusillanimity they are in
Treatise proceeds. " It happens to fear even about those things which are
thee," says S. Hilary to Constantius, certain ; doubtful which way to take,
" as to unskilful builders, always to be which way to return, what to desire,
dissatisfied with what thou hast done ; what to avoid, what to hold, what to let
thou art ever destroying what thou art go, &c." Vincent. Comm. 20. " He
ever building." contr. Constant. 23. writes," says Athan. of Constantius,
" O miserable state ! with what seas of " and while he writes repeats, and
cares, with what storms, are they while he repeats is exasperated ; and
tossed! for now at one time, as the then he grieves again, and not knowing
wind driveth them, they are carried how to act, he shews how bereft the
away headlong in error; at another soul is of understanding." Hist. Arian.
time, coming again to themselves, they 70. vid. also ad Ep. ^Eg. 6.
are beaten back like contrary waves ;
82 Council of Arim inum.
COUNC.OUT predecessors, and transgress the traditions of the Fathers,
AND1 therefore we have thought good that a Council should meet u ;
SE LEU. fout again, whereas we fear lest, should it meet at one place,
our pains will be thrown away, therefore we have thought
good that it be divided into two ; that so when we put forth
our articles to these separate portions, we may overreach with
more effect, with the threat of Constantius the patron of
this irreligion, and may abrogate the acts of Nicaea, under
pretence of their simplicity." If they have not put this into
words, yet this is the meaning of their deeds and their dis-
turbances. Certainly, many and frequent as have been their
speeches and writings in various Councils, never yet have
1 inir. they made mention of the Arian heresy as unchristian * ; but, if
" b' any present happened to accuse the heresies, they always
took up the defence of the Arian, which the Nicene Council
had anathematized ; nay, rather, they cordially welcomed the
professors of A nanism. This then is in itself a strong argu-
ment, that the aim of the present Councils was not truth, but
the annulling of the acts of Nicsea; but the proceedings of
them and their friends in the Councils themselves, make
it equally clear that this was the case : — So that it follows to
relate every thing as it occurred.
§. 8. 10. When all were in expectation that they were to assemble
in one place, whom the Emperor's letters convoked, and to form
one Council, they were divided into two ; and, while some
betook themselves to Seleucia called the Rugged, the others
met at Ariminum, to the number of those four hundred bishops
and more, among whom were Germinius, Auxentius, Valens,
Ursacius, Demophilus, and Cains*. And, while the whole
u " The Emperor [Theodosius] had to the heresiarchs from the Emperor,
a conversation with Nectarius, Bishop whether they made any sort of account
[of Constantinople], in what way to of the doctors who belonged to the
make Christendom concordant, and to Church before the division, or came to
unite the Church. This made Necta- issue with them as aliens from Chris-
rius anxious ; but Sisinnius, a man of tianity ; for if they made their autho-
ready speech and of practical expe- rity null, therefore let them venture to
rience, and throughly versed in the in- anathematize them. But if they did
terpretation of the sacred writings and venture, then they would be driven out
in the doctrines of philosophy, having by the people." Socr. v. 10.
a conviction that disputations would x There were two Arian Bishops of
but aggravate the party spirit of the Milan of the name of Auxentius, but
heresies instead of reconciling schisms, little is known of them besides. S.
advises him to avoid dialectic engage- Hilary wrote against the elder; the
ments, and to appeal to the statements other came into collision with St. Am-
of the ancients, and to put the question brose. Demophilus, Bishop of Berea,
Third Confession of Sirmium, Homcean in doctrine, 83
assembly was discussing the matter from the divine Scrip- CHAP.
tares, these men produced a paper, and, reading the Consu '- —
late, they demanded that the whole Council should acquiesce
in it, and that no questions should be put to the heretics
beyond it, nor inquiry made into their meaning, but that it
should be sufficient ; — and it ran as follows7 :
11. The Catholic Faith was published in the presence of our viii.
Sovereign the most religious and gloriously victorious Emperor, Confes-
Constantius, Augustus, the eternal and majestic, in the Con- ^^
sulate of the most illustrious Flavians, Etisebius, and Hypatius, in mjan> 0"f
Sirmium on the llth of the Calends of June2. 359. vid.
We believe in one Only and True God, the Father Almighty, §. 29
Creator and Frarner of all things : infr-
And in one Only-begotten Son of God, wrho, before all ages,
and before all origin, and before all conceivable time, and
before all comprehensible substance, was begotten impassibly from
God; through whom the ages were disposed and all things were
made ; and Him begotten as the Only -begotten, Only from the
Only Father, God from God, like to the Father who begat Him^o/av
according to the Scriptures ; whose generation no one knoweth
save the Father alone wrho begat Him. We know that He, the
Only-begotten Son of God, at the Father's bidding came
from the heavens for the abolishment of sin, and was born of the
Virgin Mary, and conversed with the disciples, and fulfilled
the economy according to the Father's will, and was crucified,
and died and descended into the parts beneath the earth, and
had the economy of things there, whom the gate-keepers of
hell saw and shuddered ; and He rose from the dead the third
day, and conversed with the disciples, and fulfilled the economy,
and when the forty days were full ascended into the heavens,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and is coming in the
last day of the resurrection in the glory of the Father, to render
to every one according to his wrorks.
And in the Holy Ghost, whom the Only-begotten of God
Himself, Jesus Christ, had promised to send to the race of men,
the Paraclete, as it is written, " I go to the Father, and I will
ask the Father, and He shall send unto you another Paraclete,
even the Spirit of Truth," He shall take of Mine and shall
teach and bring to your remembrance all things.
was one of those who carried the long drawn up at Sirmium. It was the corn-
Confession into the West, though not position of Mark of Arethusa, yet it was
mentioned by Athan. below. He was written in Latin ; and though Mark was
afterwards claimed by Aetius, as agree- a Semi-arian, it distinctly abandons the
ing with him. Of Caius, an Illyrian word substance. But this point of his-
Bishop, nothing is known except that tory is involved in much obscurity. As
he sided throughout with the Arian it stands it is a patchwork of two views,
party. It will be observed, that it is the Creed
y The Creed which follows had been on which Athanasius has been anim-
prepared at Sirmium shortly before, and adverting above,
is the third, or, as some think, the fourth, z May 22, 359, Whitsun-Eve.
G2
84 Collision between the Latin Bishops and the Acacians.
COUNC. But whereas the term " substance," has been adopted by the
ARIM. Fathers in simplicity, and gives offence as being misconceived
SELEU ^ tne Pe°P^e* an(^ 'ls not contained in the Scriptures, it has
' seemed good to remove it, that it be never in any case used of God
again, because the divine Scriptures no where use it of Father
and Son. But we say that the Son is like the Father in all
things, as all the Holy Scriptures say and teach n.
§.9. 12. When this had been read, the dishonesty of its framers
was soon apparent. For on the Bishops proposing that the
Arian heresy should be anathematized together with the other
heresies b, and all assenting, Ursacius and Valens and their
friends refused ; till in the event the Fathers condemned them,
on the ground that their confession had been written, not in
sincerity, but for the annulling of the Acts of Nicaea, and the
introduction instead of their miserable heresy. Mar veiling then
at the deceitfulness of their language and their unprincipled
intentions, the Bishops said; " Not as if in need of faith have
we come hither ; for we have within us faith, and that in sound-
ness : but that we may put to shame those who gainsay the
truth and attempt novelties. If then ye have drawn up this
formula, as if now beginning to believe, ye are not so much as
clerks, but are starting with school ; but if you meet us with
the same views, with which we have come hither, let there be a
general unanimity, and let us anathematize the heresies, and
preserve the teaching of the Fathers. Thus pleas for
Councils will not longer circulate about, the Bishops at Nicaea
having anticipated them once for all, and done all that was
needful for the Catholic Church0/' However, even then, in
a This clause shews the presence and nasius ; then they held Councils to ex-
influence of the Acacian party ; but the plain the faith ; then they attacked the
confession is raised towards the end hy received terms of theology, and thereby
the introduction of the phrase, " like in the Nicene Creed, professing to adhere
all things," x,et<rct wa,vza, ofteiov, which to Scripture. At Seleucia, as described
was added by Constantius himself, infra, they openly attacked the Creed.
Epiph. Hser. 73. 22. and which in the But they did not dare avow the Arian
minds of the more orthodox included heresy ; the first step then on the part
" substance," vid. S. Cyril, Catech. iv. of the Catholics was to demand of them
7. xi. 18. a sense, however, which is a condemnation of it. The Anomoeans
contradictory to what goes before. It perplexed the Eusebians by letting
is impossible to go into this subject out the secret of their real Arian-
without being involved in historical ism.
difficulties, which there would be no c It need scarcely be said, that the
room for discussing. great object of the Arians was to ob-
b The Eusebian party began after tain a consideration of the doctrine
the Nicene Council by attacking Atha- settled at Niceea by a new Council.
TheCouncil condemns the Acacians and writes foConstantius.85
spite of this general agreement of the Bishops, still the CHAP.
above-mentioned refused. So at length the whole Council, — : —
condemning them as ignorant and deceitful men, or rather
as heretics, gave their suffrages in behalf of the Nicene Council,
and gave judgment all of them that it was enough ; but as to
the forenamed Ursacius and Valens, Germanicus, Auxentius,
Caius, and Demophilus, they pronounced them to be heretics,
deposed them as not really Christians1, but Allans, and wrote ' supr.
against them in Latin what has been translated in its sub- Jote h.
stance 2 into Greek, thus : —
18. Copy of an Epistle from the Council to Constantius, §. 10.
Augustus d : —
" We believe it has been ordered by God's command, upon the
mandate '' of your religiousness, that we, the Bishops of the
Western Provinces, came from all parts to Ariminum, for the
manifestation of the Faith to all Catholic Churches and the
detection of the heretics. For upon a discussion, in which we all
took part who are right-minded, it was resolved to adhere to that
faith which, enduring from antiquity we have ever received from
Prophets, Gospels, and Apostles, from God Himself, and our Lord
Jesus Christ, the upholder of your dominion, and the author of your
welfare For we deemed it to be a sin, to mutilate any work of the
saints, and in particular of those who in the case of the Nicene for-
This Athan. all through his works that the Council did publish a creed.
strenuously resists. In the Letter which And, as has been alluded to in a former
follows, the Council observes, that the note, p. 70. a remarkable confession, and
Emperor had commanded lt to treat of attributed to the Council, does exist,
the faith," under which ambiguous Accordingly Athanasius, Eusebius of
phrase the Arians attempted to " pro- Vercella:, and the Council of Alexandria,
pose," as they say, " something novel A.D. 362, protest against the idea. "It
for their consideration." And so at is true that certain persons wished
Sardica the Council writes to Pope to add to the Nicene Council as if there
Julius, that the Emperors Constantius was something wanting, but the Holy
and Constans had proposed three sub- Council was displeased," &c. Tom. ad
jects for its consideration ; first, u that Antioch. However, Vigilius ofThapsus
all points in discussion should be de- repeats the report, contr. Eutych. v.
bated afresh (de integro), and above all init.
concerning the holy faith and the inte- d The same version of the Letter
grity of the truth which [the Arians] had which follows is found in Socr. ii. 39.
violated." Hil.Fragm.ii.il. Enemies of Soz. iv. 10. Theod. Hist. ii. 19. Niceph.
the Arians seem to have wished this as i. 40. On comparison with the Latin
well as themselves ; and the Council got original, which is preserved by Hilary,
into difficulty in consequence. Hosius the Fragm. viii. it appears to be so very
president and Protogenes Bishop of the freely executed, that it has been thought
place wrote to the Pope to explain, better here to translate it from the text
" from fear," says Sozomen, " lest some of Hilary.
might think that there was any innova- e Ex prsecepto. Praceptum becomes
tion upon the Nicene decrees." iii. 12. a technical word afterwards for a royal
From his way of stating the matter, deed, charter, or edict; and it has
Sozomen seems to have himself believed somewhat of that meaning even here.
86 Letter of the Council of Arim in inn.
COUNC. mulary,held session together with Coristantine of glorious memory,
ARIM. the Father of your religiousness. Which formulary was put abroad
AND and gained entrance into the minds of the people, and being at
SELEU- that time drawn up against Arianism, is found to be such, that
heresies are overthrown by it ; from which, if aught were sub-
tracted, an opening is made to the poison of the heretics.
Accordingly Ursacius and Valens formerly came into suspicion
of the said Arian heresy, and were suspended from Communion,
1 supr. and asked pardon according to their letters1, and obtained it then
P- ^4- at the Council of Milan, in the presence of the legates of the Roman
note d. Qhurci^ Andsince Constantine was at the Nicene Council, whenthe
formulary was drawn up with great deliberation, and after being
baptized with the profession of it, departed to God's rest, we think
it a crime to mutilate aught in it, and in any thing to detract
from so many Saints, and Confessors, and Successors of Mar-
tyrs who drew it up ; considering that they in turn preserved all
doctrine of the Catholics who were before them, according to the
Scriptures, and that they remained unto these times in which thy
religiousness has received the charge of ruling the world from
God the Father through our God and Lord Jesus Christ. For them,
they were attempting to pull up whathadbeen reasonably laid down.
For, whereas the letters of your religiousness commanded to treat of
the faith, there was proposed to us by the aforenamed troublers
of the Churches, Germinius being associated with Auxentius f and
Caius, something novel for our consideration, which contained
many particulars of perverse doctrine. Accordingly, when they
found that what they proposed publicly in the Council was un-
acceptable, they considered that they must draw up another
statement. Indeed it is certain that they have often changed these
formularies in a short time. And lest the Churches should have
a recurrence of these disturbances, it seemed good to keep the
ancient and reasonable institutions. For the information there-
fore of your clemency, we have instructed our legates to acquaint
you of the judgment of the Council by our letter, to whom we
have given this sole direction, not to execute the legation other-
wise than for the stability and permanence of the ancient decrees;
that your wisdom also might know, that peace would not be
accomplished by the removal of those decrees, as the aforesaid
Valens and Ursacius, Germinius and Caius, engaged. On the
contrary, troubles have in consequence been excited in all regions
and the Roman Church.
On this account we ask your clemency to regard and hear all
our legates with favourable ears and a serene countenance, and
f Auxentius, omitted in Hilary's copy, also was deposed, but he was an East-
is inserted here, and in the Decree which ern Bishop, if he be Demophilus of
follows, from the Greek, since Atha- Berea. vid. Coustant. on Hil. Fragm.
nasius has thus given his sanction to the vii. p. 1342. Yet he is mentioned also
factof his being condemned atAriminum. by Athanasius as present, supra, §. 9. A
Yet Auxentius appeals to Ariminumtri- few words are wanting in the Latin
umphantly. Hil. contr. Aux. fin. Socra- in the commencement of one of the
tes, Hist. ii. 37. says, that Demophilus sentences which follow.
Decree of lite Council. 87
not to suffer aught to be abrogated to the dishonour of the CHAP.
ancients ; so that all things may continue which we have received *•
from our forefathers, who, as we trust, were prudent men, and
acted not without the Holy Spirit of God; because by these
novelties not only are faithful nations troubled, but the infidels also
are deterred from believing. We pray also that you would give
orders that so many Bishops, who are detained at Ariminum, among
those are numbers who are broken with age and poverty, may
return to their own country, lest the members of their Churches
suffer, as being deprived of their Bishops. This, however, we
ask with earnestness, that nothing be innovated, nothing with-
drawn ; but that all remain incorrupt which has continued in
the times of the Father of your sacred piety and in your own
religious days; and that your holy prudence will not permit us to
be harassed, and torn from our sees ; but that the Bishops may in
quiet give themselves always to the prayers, which they do always
offer for your own welfare and for your reign, and for peace, which
may the Divinity bestow on you, according to your merits, profound
and perpetual ! But our legates will bring the subscriptions and
names of the Bishops or Legates, as another letter informs your
holy and religious prudence.
1-1. Decree of the Council*. §• H.
As far as it was fitting, dearest brethren, the Catholic Council
has had patience, and has so often displayed the Church's for-
bearance towards Ursacius and Valens, Germinius, Cams, and
Auxentius; who by so often changing what they had believed,
have troubled all the Churches, and still are endeavouring to
introduce their heretical spirit into Christian minds. For they
wish to annul the formulary passed at Nicaea, which was framed
against the Arian and other heresies. They have presented to us
besides a creed drawn up by themselves, which we could not law-
fully receive. Even before this have they been pronounced
heretics by us, and it has been confirmed by a long period, whom
we have not admitted to our communion, but condemned them in
their presence by our voices. Now then, what seems good to
you, again declare, that it may be ratified by the subscription of
each.
All the Bishops answered, It seems good that the aforenamed
heretics should be condemned, that the Church may remain in
unshaken faith, which is truly Catholic, and in perpetual peace.
15. Matters at Arimiimm then had this speedy issue ; for
g This Decree is also here translated proposed, acknowledges in particular
from the original in Hilary, who has both the word and the meaning of " sub-
besides preserved the " Catholic Defi- stance;" " substantise nomen et rem, a
nition" of the Council, in which it pro- multis sanctis Scripturis insinuatam
fesses its adherence to the Creed of mentibus nostris, obtinere debere stii
Nicgpa, and in opposition to the Sir- firmitatem." Fragm. vii. 3.
mian Confession which the Arians had
88 Union of the Acacians at Seleucia with the Anomceans.
COUNC. there was no disagreement there, but all of them with one
ANp accord both put into writing what they decided upon, and
SELEU. deposed the Arians b. Meanwhile the transactions in Seleucia
§. 12. the Rugged were as follows : it was in the month called by the
Romans September, by the Egyptians Thoth, and by the
Macedonians Gorpiaeus ', and the day of the month according
to the Egyptians the 16th, upon which all the members of the
Council assembled together. And there were present about
a hundred and sixty ; and whereas there were many who
were accused among them, and their accusers were crying
out against them, Acacius, and Patrophilus, and Uranius of
Tyre, and Eudoxius, who usurped the Church of Antioch,
and Leontius, and Theodotus, and Evagrius, and Theodulus,
and George who has been driven from the whole world k, adopt
an unprincipled course. Fearing the proofs which their ac-
cusers had to shew against them, they coalesced with the rest of
the Arian party \ (who were mercenaries in the cause of irreligioi
as if for this purpose, and were ordained by Secundus who hi
h Athanasius seems to have known
no more of the proceedings at Arimi-
num, which perhaps were then in pro-
gress, when he wrote this Treatise ;
their termination, as is well known, was
very unhappy, u Ingemuittotus orhis,"
says St. Jerome, u et Arianum se esse
miratus est." ad Lucif. 19. A deputation
of ten persons was sent from the Coun-
cil to Constantius, to which Valens op-
posed «>ne of his own. Constantius pre-
tended the barbarian war, and delayed
an answer till the beginning of October,
the Council having opened in July.
The Postscript to this Treatise con-
tained the news of this artifice and of
the Council's distress in consequence,
which Athanasius had just heard. He
also seems to have inserted into his
work, £. 30 and 31, upon the receipt of
the news of the mission of Valens to
Constantinople, a mission which ended
in the submission of the Catholic dele-
gacy. Upon this returning to Ariminum
with the delegates and the Arian creed
they had signed, (vid. infr. §. 30.)
Valeiis, partly by menaces and partly
by sophistry, succeeded in procuring the
subscriptions of the Council also to the
same formula.
1 Gorpiseus was the first month of the
Syro-Macedonic year among theGreeks,
dating according to the era of the Seleu-
cidffi. The Roman date of the meetir
of the Council was the 27th of Septem-
ber. The original transactions at Ari-
minum had at this time been finishe "
as much as two mouths, and its
deputies were waiting for Constanth
in Constantinople.
k There is little to observe of these
Acacian Bishops in addition to wl
has been said of several of them, exc
that George is the Cappadocian, the
notorious intruder into the see of
Athanasius. The charges which laj
against them were of various kinds.
Socrates says that the Acacian party
consisted in all of 34 ; others increase it
by a few more.
1 The Eusebian or Court party are
here called Acacian, and were Anomce-
ans and Semi-arians alternately, or
more properly as they may be called
Homcean or Scriptural; for Arians,
Semi-arians, and Anomceans, all used
theological terms as well as the Catho-
lics. The Semi-arians numbered about
100, the remaining dozen might be the
Egyptian Bishops who were zealous
supporters of the Catholic cause. How-
ever, there were besides a few Anomce-
ans or Arians, as Athan. calls them,
with whom the Acacians now coa-
lesced.
Semi-arian majority condemn them. 89
been deposed by the great Council,) the Libyan Stephen, CHAP.
and Seras, and Pollux, who were under accusation upon — I; —
various charges, next Pancratius, and one Ptolemy a Mele-
tianm. And they made a pretence of entering upon the
question of faith, but it was clear n they were doing so
from fear of their accusers ; and they took the part of
the heresy, till at length they were left by themselves. For,
whereas supporters of the Acacians lay under suspicion and
were very few, but the others were the majority; therefore
the Acacians, acting with the boldness of desperation,
altogether denied the Nicene formula, and censured the
Council, while the others, who were the majority, accepted
the whole proceedings of the Council, except that they com-
plained of the word " Consubstantial," as obscure and open
to suspicion. When then time passed, and the accusers
pressed, and the accused put in pleas, and thereby were
led on further by their irreligion and blasphemed the Lord,
thereupon the majority of Bishops became indignant0, and
deposed Acacius, Patrophilus, Uranius, Eudoxitis, and George
the contractor1, and others from Asia, Leontius, and Theodosius, ! pork-
Evagrius and Theodoret, and excommunicated Asterius, factor
Eusebius, Augerus, Basilicus, Phoabus, Fidelias, Eutychius, to the
and Magnus. And this they did on their non-appearance, i
when summoned to defend themselves on charges which
numbers preferred against them. And they decreed that so Arian.
they should remain, until they made their defence 1
Orat.21.
16.
ra The Meletian schismatics of Egypt arian Confession of the Dedication, 341.
had formed an alliance with the Arians of which infr. §. 22. Basil of Ancyra,
from the first. Athan. imputes the the leading Semi-arian, was not present j
alliance to ambition and avarice in the and he and Mark of Arethusa were both
Meletians, and to zeal for their heresy parties to the Acacian third Sirmium
in the Arians. Ad Ep. JEg. 22. vid. Confession, which had been proposed at
also Hist. Arian. 78. After Sardica the Ariminum. George of Laodicea, how-
Semi-arians attempted a coalition with ever, who was with him at the Council of
the Donatists of Africa. Aug. contr. Ancyra in the foregoing year, acted as
Cresc. iii. 38. the leader of the Semi-arians. After
n Acacius had written to the Semi- this the Acacians drew up another
arian Macedonius of Constantinople Confession,which Athan. has preserved,
in favour of the XKTO, rcivrct opeiav, and infra, §. 29. in which they persist in
of the Son's being *•*? awrJJf ovriaf, and their rejection of all but Scripture
this the Council was aware of. Soz. iv. terms. This the Semi-arian majority
22. Acacius made answer that no one rejected, and proceeded to depose its
ancient or modern was ever judged by authors. There is nothing to remark
his writings. Socr. ii. 40. as regards the names of Arian Bishop.s
0 They also confirmed the Semi- here introduced into the text.
COUNC
A RIM.
AND
SELEU.
§. 13.
1 supr.
p. 80,
note r.
2 -ff^i-
VOVffl.
int'r. §.
16. fin.
QQContrastbeiween Council of Arimimtm in itsjirst proceeding*
cleared themselves of the offences imputed to them. And
after despatching the sentence pronounced against them to
the diocese of each, they proceeded to Constantius, that most
irreligious p Augustus, to report to him their proceedings, as
they had been ordered. And this was the termination of the
Council in Seleucia.
16. Who then but must approve of the conscientious conduct
of the Bishops at Ariminum ? who endured such labour of
journey and perils of sea, that by a sacred and canonical
resolution they might depose the Arians, and guard inviolate
the definitions of the Fathers. For each of them deemed
that, if they undid the acts of their predecessors, they were
affording a pretext to their successors to undo what they
themselves then were enacting1. And who but must condemn
the fickleness of the party of Eudoxius and Acacius, who
sacrifice2 the honour due to their own fathers to partizaii-
P Up to the year 356, Athanasius
had treated Constantius as a member
of the Church ; but at that date the
Eusebian or Court party abandoned the
Semi-aiians for the Anomoeans, George
of Cappadoda was sent as Bishop to
Alexandria, Athanasius was driven
into the desert, St. Hilary and other
Western Bishops were sent into banish-
ment, Hosius was persecuted into sign-
ing an Arian confession, and Pope
Liberius into communicating with the
Arians. Upon this Athanasius chang-
ed his tone and considered that he had
to deal with an Antichrist. We have
seen above, note g, the language both
of himself and others in consequence.
In his Apol. contr. Arian. init.
(A.D. 350.) ad Ep. JEg. 5. (356.) and
his Apol. ad Constant, passim. (356.) he
calls the Emperor most pious, reli-
gious, &c. At the end of the last-men-
tioned work, §. 27. the news comes to
him while in exile of the persecution of
the Western Bishops and the measures
against himself. He still in the per-
oration calls Constantius, " blessed and
divinely favoured Augustus," and urges
on him that he is a " Christian. ^iXo^iff-
TUJ, Emperor." In the works which fol-
low, Apol. de fuga, §. 26. (357.) he calls
him an heretic; and Hist. Arian. §. 45,
&c. (358.) speaking of the treatment of
Hosius, &c. he calls him '< Ahab,"
" Belshazzar," " Saul," " Antichrist."
The passage at the end of the Apol.
contr. Arian. in which he speaks of the
" much violence and tyrannical power
of Constantius," is an addition of
Athan.'s at a later date, vid. Montfau-
con's note on §. 88. fin. This is worth
mentioning, as it shews the unfairness
of the following passage from Gibbon,
ch. xxi. note 116. " As Athanasius
dispersed secret invectives against Con-
stantius, see the Epistle to the monks,"
[i. e. Hist. Arian. ad Monach. A. D.
358.] " at the same time that he
assured him of his profound respect, we
might disfust the professions of the
Archbishop, torn. i. p. 677." [i. e. ap-
parently Apol. ad Const. A.D. 356.]
Again in a later part of the chapter,
" In his public Apologies, which he
addressed to the Emperor himself, he
sometimes affected the praise of modera-
tion ; whilst at the same time in secret
and vehement invectives he exposed
Constantius as a weak and wicked
prince, the executioner of his family,
the tyrant of the republic, and the Anti-
chris't of the Church." He offers no
proof of this assertion. It may be added
that S. Greg. Naz. praises Constantius,
but it is in contrast to Julian. Orat. iv.
3. v. 6. And S. Ambrose, but it is for
his enmity to paganism. Ep. i. 18.
n. 32.
and fhe Acacians.
91
ship and patronage of the Ario-maniacsq? for what confidence
can be placed in their acts, if the acts of their fathers be
undone ? or how call they them fathers and themselves suc-
cessors, if they set about impeaching their judgment ? and
especially what can Acacius say of his own master, Eusebius,
who not only gave his subscription*in the Niceiie Council,
but even in a letter * signified to his flock, that that was true
faith, which the Council had declared? for, if he explained
i vid.
§.3.
q " The dumb ass forbade the mad- we read much of their eager spirit of
ness of the prophet," •x-Kgxipoovi/x.v. On proselytism. Theod. ibid. The ori-
the word'A^j/^avrra/, Giobon observes, ginal word mania best expresses it in
" The ordinary appellation with which English. Their cruelty came into
Athanasius and his followers chose to this idea of their " mania ;" hence
compliment the Arians, was that of Athan. in one place calls the Arian
Ariomanites,"ch. xxi. note 61. Bather, women, in the tumult under George
the name originally was a state title, of Cappadocia, Mcenades. u They
injoined by Constantine, vid. Petav. running up and down like Bac-
de Trin. i." 8. fin. Naz. Orat. p. 794. chanals and furies, pcuvefits *«< l^'vm?,
note e. and thenceforth used by the thought it a misfortune not to rind
general Church, e. g. Eustathius of opportunity for injury, and passed that
Antioch, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 7. Con- day in grief in which they could do no
stant. ap. Conril. t. i. p. 456. b. Hilar. harm." Hist. Arian. 59. Also " pro-
de Trin. vi. Julius ap. Athan. Apol. fana Ariorum novitas velut qugedam
23. Council of Egypt, ibid. 6. Phse- Bellona aut Furia." Vincent. Commin.
badius, contr. Arian. circ. fin. Epiph. 6. Eustathius speaks of ol fKou$*>%<ii T^
Ha°r. 69. 19. (o ftetvi&dv; 'Ajs<«?.) Greg, ugt'ou 8v[Ai\ys fittri!%t>goi. ap. Phot. -225.
Naz. Orat. ii. 37. TV*; 'A^s/ow xxXug p. 759. And hence tlie strange parono-
ovaf/a.trh7ffuy f^xviav and SO o Ttjf
l-xtawpos. Orat. 43. 30. vid. also Orat.
20. 5. and so Proclus, vvv'Agi'iov pxviuv
ad Arinen. p. 618 fin. And Athan. e. g
\ov. ad S
erap
masia of Constantine, 'A^sj, ci^-is, with
an allusion to Horn. II. v. 31. A second
reason,or rather sense,of the appellation
was what is noted, supr. p. 2. note e.
i. 1. also that, denying the Word, they have foi'-
ad Serap. i. 17 fin. 19 init. 20. d. 24. feited the gift of reason, e. g
e. 29. e. ii. 1 fin. iv. 5 init. 6 fin. 15
de Sent.
fin. 16 fin. In some of these the denial Dion. init. vid. ibid. 24. fin. Orat. ii. §.
of the divinity of the Holy Ghost is 32. c. iii. §. 63. throughout. Hence in
the madness. In like manner Hilary like manner Athan. speaks of the heathen
speaks continually of their "furor." asmad who did not acknowledge God and
de Trin. e. g. i. 17. Several meanings His Word, contr. Gent. fin. also 23. fin.
are implied in this title ; the real rea- Hence he speaks of s.'&wAo^av/a. contr.
son for it was the fanatical fury with Gent. 10. and 21 fin. Again, Incarn.
which it spread and maintained itself; 47. he speaks of the mania of oracles,
e. g. o ptetvixo: l^utrrvii rov^iffrou} en- which belongs rather to the former
thusiastic. Chrysost. inEsai.vi. l.Hom. sense of the word. Other heresies had
iv. 3. p. 124. Thus Athan. contrasts the word mania applied to them, e. g.
the Arian hatred of the truth, with the that of Valentinus Athan. Orat. ii. §.
Epiphanius speaks
^xs-xxXia of the Noe-
mere worldliness of the Meletians, supr. 70. x«»
p. 89. note m. Hence they are a<rs/3i?V, of the
%t»t/Troftci%oi , and governed by xaxdvoiu tians. Hser. 57. 2. JNazianzen con-
and xKX9<p£oirtJv)i. Again, Socrates trasts the sickness, tores, of Sabellius
speaks of it as a flame which ra- with the madness of Arius ; Orat. 20.
vaged, \vivipiroy provinces and cities. 5. but Athan. says, ^y.mra.1 p.lv*A(>tiof,
i. 6. And Alexander cries out, u u.va«riev putinrmt 31 Sa/3sXX/«;, Orat. iv. 25.
vv$6u KKI u-ftiroav ftctvictf . Theod. Hist. i. But this note might be prolonged in-
3. p. 741. vid. also pp. 735, 6. 747. And definitely.
92 Impiety of the Arians towards the Fathers.
COUNC. himself in that letter in his own way1, yet he did not contradict
^Jj1"' the Council's terms, but even charged it upon the Arians,
SELEU. that, their position that the Son was not before His gene-
ration, was not even consistent with His being before Mary.
What then will they proceed to teach the people who are
under their teaching ? that the fathers erred ? and how are
they themselves to be trusted by those, whom they teach to
disobey their Teachers ? and with what faces too will they look
upon the sepulchres of the Fathers whom they now name
heretics ? And why do they defame the Valentinians, Phrygians,
and Manichees, yet give the name of saint to those whom
they themselves suspect of making parallel statements ? or how
can they any longer be Bishops, if they were ordained by
1 P- 80- persons whom they accuse of heresy l ? But if their senti-
note r. ..... 111
p. 82. ments were wrong and their writings seduced me world, then
note u. iet their memory perish altogether ; when, however, you cast
out their books, go and cast out their relics too from the
cemeteries, so that one and all may know that they are se-
§. 14. ducers, and that you are parricides. The blessed Apostle
1 Cor. approves of the Corinthians because, he says, ye remember
me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them
to you ; but they, as entertaining such views of their prede-
cessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their
flocks : " We praise you not for remembering your fathers,
but rather we make much of you, when you hold not their
traditions." And let them go on to cast a slur on their own
ignoble birth, and say, " We are sprung not of religious
men but of heretics." For such language, as I said before,
2 •*•£««•/- is consistent in those who barter2 their Father's fame and
Deer their own salvation for Arianism, and fear not the words of
§• •*. the divine proverb, There is a generation that curseth their
30° 11. father, and the threat lying in the Law against such.
17. They then, from zeal for the heresy, are of this obstinate
temper ; you, however, be not troubled at it, nor take their
audacity for truth. For they dissent from each other, and,
whereas they have revolted from their Fathers, are not of one
and the same mind, but float about with various and discordant
changes. And, as quarrelling with the Council of Nicaea, they
u{ Miltiftv. vid. also de Deer. §. 3. us Mi*.*i<rav ad Ep. JEg. 5.
TJteir Variations. i>8
have held many Councils themselves, and have published afaith CHAP.
in each of them, and have stood to none1, nay, they will never l — - —
do otherwise, for perversely seeking, they will never find that^g. g?"
Wisdom which they hate. I have accordingly subjoined
portions both of Arius's writings and of whatever else I could
collect, of their publications in different Councils ; whereby
you will learn to your surprise with what object they stand
out against an Ecumenical2 Council and their own Fathers a supr.
without blushing. note 'Om
CHAP. II.
HISTORY OF ARIAN OPINIONS.
Anus's own sentiments; his Thalia and Letter to S. Alexander ; corrections
by Eusebius and others; extracts from the works of Asterius ; letter of
the Council of Jerusalem ; first Creed of Arians at the Dedication at
Antioch ; second, Lucian's on the same occasion ; third, by Theophronius ;
fourth, sent to Constans in Gaul ; fifth, the M acrostic-he sent into Italy ;
sixth, at Sirmium; seventh, at the same place; and eighth also, as
given above in Chapter i ; ninth, at Seleucia ; tenth, at Constantinople ;
eleventh, at Antioch.
COUNC. 1. ARIUS and his friends thought and professed thus: " God
AND ' made the Son out of nothing, and called Him His Son ;" " The
SELEU. \yord of God is one of the creatures;" and " Once He was
not;" and " He is alterable ; capable, when it is His will, of
altering." Accordingly they were expelled from the Church
§. 15. by Alexander of blessed memory. However, after his ex-
pulsion, when he was with the Eusebians, he drew up his
r us sv heresy upon paper, and imitating, as if in festivity *, no
/? grave writer, but the Egyptian Sotades, in the dissolute tone
of his metre3, he writes at great length, for instance as
follows : —
2. Blasphemies of Arius.
God Himself then, in His own nature, is ineffable by all men.
Equal or like Himself He alone has none, or one in glory.
a Again, Orat. i. §. 2 — 5. he calls sius should say the Egyptian Sotades,
him the Sotadean Arius ; and speaks of and again in Sent. D. G. There were
the "dissolute manners," and "the two Poets of the name ; one a writer of
effeminate tone," and the " jests" of the Middle Comedy, Athen. Deipn. vii.
the Thalia; a poem which, he says 11; but the other, who is here spoken
shortly before, " is not even found of, was a native of Maronea in Crete,
among the more respectable Greeks, according to Suidas, (in voc.) under
but among those only who sing songs the successors of Alexander, Athen.
over their wine, with noise and re- xiv. 4. He wrote in Ionic metre,
vel." vid. also de Sent. D. 6. Con- which was of infamous name from the
stantine also after the "Aftg "A^m, subjects to which he and others applied
proceeds, iviir%i<ru $i &6 n yoi-v 'A$gobi- it. vid. Suid. ibid. Some read " Sota~
797? <v*/X»'a. Epiph. Hser. ti'J. 9 tin. dices" for " Socraticos," Juv. Satir.
Socrates too says that " the character ii. 10. vid. also Martial Ep. ii. 86.
of the book was gross and dissolute." The characteristic of the metre was the
Hist. i. 9. The Arian Philostorgius recurrence of the same cadence, which
tells us that " Arius wrote songs for the virtually destroyed the division into
*ea and for the mill and for the road, verses, Turneb. in Quinct. i. 8. and
and then set them to suitable music," thus gave the composition that lax
Hist. ii. 2. Itis remarkable that Athana- and slovenlv air to which Athanasius
iiiffs Thalia.
95
And Ingenerate we call Him, because of Him who is generate CHAP.
by nature. **•
We praise Him as Unoriginate because of Him who has an origin.
And adore Him as everlasting, because of Him who in time
has come to be.
The Unoriginate made the Son an origin of things generated ;
And advanced Him as a Son to Himself by adoption.
He has nothing proper to God in proper subsistence.
For He is not equal, no, nor one in substance b with Him.
Wise is God, for He is the teacher of Wisdom0.
There is full proof that God is invisible to all beings,
Both to things which are through the Son, and to the Son He is
invisible.
I will say it expressly, how by the Son is seen the Invisible ;
By that power by which God sees, and in His own measure,
The Son endures to see the Father, as is lawful.
Thus there is a Three, not in equal glories.
Not intermingling with each other'1 are their subsistences.
One more glorious than the other in their glories unto immensity.
Foreign from the Son in substance is the Father, for He is
Unoriginate.
alludes. Horace's Ode, " Miserarnm
est nee amori, &c." is a specimen of this
metre, and some have called itSotadic ;
but Bentley shews in loc. that Sotades
wrote in the Ionic a majore, and that
his verse had, somewhat more of system
than is found in the Ode of Horace.
Athensus implies that all Tonic metres
were called Sotadic, or that Sotades
wrote in various Ionic metres. The
Church adopted the Doric music, and
forbade the Ionic and Lydian. The
name " Thalia" commonly belonged to
convivial songs ; Martial contrasts the
" lasciva Thalia" with " carmina sanc-
tiora," Epigr. vii. 17. vid. Thaliarchus,
" the master of the feast," Horat. Od.
i. 9. If one were to attempt to form a
judgment on the nature of Anus's
proceeding, it would be this ; that he
attempted to popularize his heresy by
introducing it into the common employ-
ments and recreations of life, and having
no reverence, he fell into the error of
modern religionists, who, with a better
creed, sing spiritual songs at table, and
use in their chapels glees and opera
airs. This would be more offensive of
old even than now, in proportion to the
keener sensibilities of the South and the
more definite ideas which music seems
to have conveyed to their minds ; and
more especially in a case where the
metre Arius employed had obtained so
shocking a reputation, and was asso-
ciated in the minds of Christians with
the deeds of darkness, in the midst of
which in those heathen times the Church
lived and witnessed.
13 This passage ought to have been
added to note t, p. 35. supr. as contain-
ing a more direct denial of the o^oautriev ;
so incorrect is Gibbon's assertion, that
on Eusebius's " ingenuously confessing
that it was incompatible with the prin-
ciples of their theological system, the
fortunate opportunity was eagerly em-
braced by the Bishops," as if they were
bent at all hazards, and without re-
ference to the real and substantial agree-
ment or disagreement of themselves and
the Arians, to find some word which
might accidentally serve to exclude
the latter from communion.
c That is, Wisdom, or the S->n, is
but the disciple of Him who is Wise,
and not the attribute by which He is
Wise, which is what the Sabellians
said, vid. Orat. iv. §. 2. and what Arius
imputed to the Church.
'' uviTriftinre}, that is, he denied the
xipxwwit, vid. infra, Orat. iii. 3, &c.
Arms' 's Thalia.
COUNC. Understand that the One was; but the Two was not, before
ARIM. it was in existence.
SELEU. It follow sat once that, though the Son wasnot, the Father was God.
Hence the Son, not being, (for He existed at the will ofthe Father,)
Is God Only-begotten, and He is alien from either.
Wisdom existed as Wisdom by the will of the Wise God.
Hence He is conceived in numberless conceptions6.
Spirit, Power, Wisdom, God's glory, Truth, Image, and Word.
Understand that He is conceived to be Radiance and Light.
One equal to the Son, the Superior is able to generate.
But more excellent, or superior, or greater, He is not able.
At God's will the Son is what and whatsoever He is
And when and since He was, from that time He has subsisted
from God.
He, being a strong God, praises in His degree the Superior.
To speak in brief, God is ineffable by His Son.
For He is to Himself what He is, that is, unspeakable.
So that nothing which is called comprehensiblef
Does the Son know to speak about ; for it is impossible for Him
To investigate the Father, who is by Himself.
For the Son does not know His own substance,
For, being Son, He really existed, at the will of the Father.
What argument then allows, that He who is from the Father
Should know His own parent by comprehension ?
For it is plain that, for That which hath origin
To conceive how the Unoriginate is,
Or to grasp the idea, is not possible.
§. 16. 3. And what they wrote by letter to Alexander of blessed
memory, the Bishop, runs as follows : —
To Our Blessed Pope8 and Bishop, Alexander, the Presbyters
and Deacons, send health in the Lord.
Our faith from our forefathers, which also we have learned from
e Ivrtvoictis, that is, our Lord's titles
are but names, or figures, not properly
belonging to Him but only existing in
oar minds.
f xura xxreiXn-^tv, that is, there is
nothing comprehensible in the Father
for the Son to know and declare. On
the other hand the doctrine of the Ano-
mceans, who in most points agreed with
Arius, was, that all men could know
Almighty God perfectly; according to
Socrates, who says, " Not to seem to be
slandering, listen to Eunomius himself,
what words he dares to use in sophistry
concerning God ; they run thus: — ' God
knows not of His substance more than
we do ; nor is it known to Him more, to
us less ; but whatsoever we may know of
it, that He too knows ; and what again
He, that you will find without any
distinction in us.' " Hist. iv. 7.
I Alexander is also so called, Theod.
Hist. i. 4. p. 749. Athanasius, Hieron.
contr. Joan. 4. Heraclas, also of Alex-
Art. tiffs letter to Alexander.
97
thee, Blessed Pope, is this : — We acknowledge One God, alone CHAP.
Ingenerate, alone Everlasting, alone Unoriginate, alone True, H.
alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone Good, alone Sovereign ;
Judge, Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable and unchange-
able, just and good, God of Law and Prophets and New Testament;
who generated an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through
whom He has made both the ages and the universe ; and generated
Him, not in semblance, but in truth ; and that He made Him
subsist at His own will unalterable and unchangeable; perfect
creature of God, but not as one of the creatures ; offspring, but
not as one of things generated; nor as Valentinus pronounced that
the offspring of the Father was an issue h; nor as Manichaeus
taught that the offspring was a portion of the Father, one in sub-
stance1 ; or as Sabellius, dividing the One, speaks of a Son-and-
Father k ; nor as Hieracas, of one torch from another, or as a lamp
divided into two1 ; nor of Him who was before, being afterwards
generated or new-created into a Son'", as thou too thyself, Blessed
andria, by Dionysius apud Euseb. Hist.
vii. 7. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Hieron.
Ep. 57, 2. John of Jerusalem, Hier.
contr. Joan. 4. Cyprian of Carthage,
Ep. ap. Cypr. 31. Augustine of Hippo,
Hier. Ep. 141 init. Lupus, Pragmatius,
Leontius, Theoplastus, Eutropius, &c. of
Gaul, by Sidon. Apoll. Ep. vi. Eutyches,
Archimandrite, Abraham Abbot, are
called by the same name, in the Acts of
Chalcedon.
h "What the Valentinian ir^e*.* was,
is described in Epiph. Hser.31, 13. The
^Eons, wishing to shew thankfulness to
God, contributed together (i(>uvtffeip.ivavs)
whatever was most beautiful of each of
them, and moulding these several ex-
ceVencies into one, formed this Issue,
voepct*.tff0cu v£o(fotiftot, to the honour and
glory of the Profound, $v0os, and they
called this star and flower of the Ple-
roma, Jesus, &c. And so Tertullian
u a joint contribution, ex sere collatitio,
to the honour and glory of the Father,
ex omnium defloratione constructum,"
contr. Valent. 12. Accordingly Origen
protests against the notion of ^a/SaXn,
Periarch.iv. p. 190. and Athanasius Ex-
pos. $• 1 . The Arian Asterius too considers
*r^«/3«X« to introduce the notion of >rt»-
voyeiix, Euseb. contr. Marc. i. 4. p.2().vid.
alsoEpiph.Heer.72.7. Yet Eusebius uses
the word «r£ef3aX/u<rtfa/. Eccles. Theol. i.8.
On the other hand Tertullian uses itwith
a protest against the Valentinian sense.
Justin has *-§«j3Wm yiwiftu, Tryph.
62. And Nazianzen calls the Almighty
Father ^eftcXtuf of the Holy Spirit.
Orat. 29. 2. Arius introduces the word
here as an argwnenhnn ad invidiam.
Hil. de Trin. vi. 9.
' The Manichees adopting a material
notion of the divine substance, con-
sidered that it was divisible, and that a
portion of it was absorbed by the power
of darkness, vid. Appendix to Transla-
tion of St. Augustine's Confessions, ii.
k oio-retraga. This word is made the
symbol of the Noetians or Sabellians by
both Catholics and Arians, as if their
doctrine involved or avowed Patripas-
sianism, or that the Father suffered.
Without entering upon the controversy
raised by Beausobre, (Hist. Manich. iii.
6. §. 7, &c.) Mosheim, (Ant. Constant,
ssec. ii. §. 68. iii. 32.) and Lardner,
(Cred. part ii. ch. 41.) on the subject,
we may refer to the following passages
for the use of the term. It is ascribed to
Sabellius, Ammon. in Caten. Joan. i.
1. p. 14. to Sabellius and Marcellus,
Euseb. Eccl. Theol. ii. 5. to Marcel-
lus, Cyr. Hier. Catech. xv. 9. also iv.
8. xi. 16. Epiph. Hffir. 73. 11 fin. to
Sabellians, Athan. Expos. F. 2. and 7
Can. Constant, and Greg. Nyssen. contr.
Euro. xii. p. 305. to certain heretics,
Cyril Alex, in Joann. p. 243. to Prax-
eas and Montanus. Mar. Merc. p. 128.
to Sabellius, Csesar. Dial. i. p. 550. to
Noetus, Damasc. Haer. 57.
* Hieracas was a Manichs'an. He
compared the Two Divine Persons to
the two lights of one lamp, where the
oil is common and the flame double,
thus implying a substance distinct from
Father and Son, or to a flame divided
into two by (for instance) the papyrus
which was commonly used instead of a
wick. vid. Hilar. de Trin. vi. 12.
m Bull considers that the doctrine of
such Fathers ishere spoken of asheld that
JI
98 Arius s letter to Alexander.
COUNC. Pope, in the midst of the Church and in Session hast often con-
ARIM. demned; but, as we say, at the will of God, created before times
AND
and before ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who
ELBU; gave subsistence to His glories together with Him. For the
Father did not, in giving to Him the inheritance of all things,
deprive Himself, of what He has ingenerately in Himself; for He
is the Fountain of all things.
Thus there are Three Subsistences. And God, being the cause
of all things, is Unoriginate and altogether Sole, but the Son being
generated apart from time by the Father, and being created and
founded before ages, was not before His generation, but being
generated apart from time before all things, alone was made to
subsist by the Father. For He is not eternal or co-eternal or co-
ingenerate with the Father, nor has He His being together with the
Father, as some speak of relations", introducing two ingenerate
origins, but God is before all things as being a One and an
Origin of all. Wherefore also He is before the Son ; as we have
"Rom. learned also from Thy preaching in the midst of the Church. So
11, 36. far then as from God He has being, and glories, and life, and all
Ps. 110, things are delivered unto Him, in such sense is God His origin.
3. ' For He is above Him, as being His God and before Him. But
John if the terms from Him, and from the womb, and / came forth from
16, 28. ihe Father, and I am come1, be understood by some to mean as if a
"*" part of Him, one in substance, or as an issue, then the Father is
Chrys° according to them compounded and divisible and alterable and
Horn. 3. material, and, as far as their belief goes, has the circumstances of
Hebr. a body, who is the Incorporeal God.
init.
Ha* 73 ^^s *s a Part °^ w^iat ^e Arians cast out from their
si. and heretical hearts.
O£»
* ' jy 4. And before the Nicene Council took place, similar state-
out Lord's ffvyxtnTK^xtris to create the Himself became the Son when He was
world was a yswusi;, ano certainly such made man." It makes it more likely
language as that of Ilippol. contr. that Marcellus is meant, that Asterius
Noet. §. 15. favours the supposition, seems to have written against him before
But one class of the Sabelhans may the Nicene Council, and that Arius
more probably be intended, who held in other of his writings borrowed from
that the Word became the Son on His Asterius. vid. de Decret. §. 8.
incarnation, such as Marcellus, vid. n Eusebius's letter to Euphration,
Euseb. Eecles. Theol. i. 1. contr. Marc, which is mentioned just after, expresses
ii. 3. vid. also Eecles. Theol. ii. 9. this more distinctly — " If they co-exist,
p. 114. b. prd' ci>.*.oTt «;u»jv *. r. A. how shall the Father be Father and the
Also the Macrostich says, " We ana- Son Son ? or how the One first, the Other
thematize those who call Him the second? and the One ingenerate and
mere Word of God, not allowing the Other generate P" Acta Cone. 7.
Him to be Christ and Son of God before p. 301. The phrase TO. <rtf>t n Bull well
all ages, but from the time He took on explains to refer to the Catholic truth
Him our flesh ; such are the followers that the Father or Son being named,
of Marcellus and Photinus, &c." infra, the Other is therein implied without
§. 26. Again, Athanasius, Orat. iv. 15. naming. Defens. F. N. iii. 9. §. 4.
says that, of those who divide the Word Hence Arius, in his Letter to Euse-
from the Son, some called our Lord's bius, complains that Alexander says,
manhood the Son, some the two Nature* ait o hot, otii o vltf ciftet VTKTV£, etftct, vl»tt
together, and some said " that the Word Theod. Hist. i. 4.
Arian statements of ULC twoEusebii, Athanasius and George. 99
ments were made by Eusebius's party, Narcissus, Patrophilus, CHAP.
Maris, Paulinus, Theodotus, and Athanasius of Nazarbi0. —
And Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote over and above to Arius,
to this effect, " Since your sentiments are good, pray that all
may adopt them ; for it is plain to any one, that what has
been made was not before its generation ; but what came to
be, has an origin of being." And Eusebius of Ca3sarea in
Palestine, in a letter to Euphration the Bishop, did not
scruple to say plainly that Christ was not true Godp. And
Athanasius of Nazarbi uncloked the heresy still further,
saying that the Son of God was one of the hundred sheep.
For writing to Alexander the Bishop, he had the extreme
audacity to say : " Why complain of the Arians, for saying,
The Son of God is made as a creature out of nothing, and
one among others ? For all that are made being represented
in parable by the hundred sheep, the Son is one of them.
If then the hundred are not created and generated, or if there
be beings beside that hundred, then may the Son be not a
creature nor one among others ; but if those hundred are all
generate, and there is nothing besides the hundred save God
alone, what extravagance do the Arians utter, when, as com-
prehending and reckoning Christ in the hundred, they say
that He is one among others ?" ; And George who now is in
Laodicea, and then was presbyter of Alexandria, and was
staying at Antioch, wrote to Alexander the Bishop ; " Do
not complain of the Arians, for saying, * Once the Son of
God was not,' for Esaias came to be son of Amos, and, whereas
Amos was before Esaias came to be, Esaias was not before,
but came to be afterwards." And he wrote to the Arians,
" Why complain of Alexander the Pope1, saying, that the Son ' P. 96,
is from the Father ? for you too need not fear to say that the n°
Son was from God. For if the Apostle wrote, All things are 1 Cor.
11, 12.
0 Most of these original Arians were for nothing all the Ecclesiastical Fa-
ittackedin a work of Marcellus's which thers, being satisfied with no one but
Eusebius answers. " Now he replies to himself." contr. Marc. i. 4. There is
A.sterius," says Eusebius, " now to the little to be said of Maris and Theodotus.
2jreat Eusebius," [of Nicomedia,] " and Nazarbi is more commonly called Ana-
:hen he turns upon that man of God, zarbus, and is in Cilicia.
:hat indeed thrice blessed person Pau- P Thisi.squoted, among otherpassages
inus, [of Tyre.] Thenhe goes towarwith from Eusebius, in the 7th General Coun-
Drigen Next he marches out against oil, Act. 6. p. 409. " The Son Himself
Narcissus, and pursues the other Eu- is God, but not Very God."
'ebius," himself. " In a word, he counts
H2
100
Arian statements of Asterius.
Covxc.from God, and it is plain that all things are made of nothing,
AND ' though the Son too is a creature and one of things made,
SELEU. s{\\\ He may be said to be from God in that sense in which
all things are said to be from God." From him then the
Arians learned to pretend to the phrase from God, and to use
it indeed, but not in a good meaning. And George himself
was deposed by Alexander for certain reasons, and among
them for manifest irreligion ; for he was himself a presbyter,
as has been said before.
§. 18. 5. On the whole then such were their statements, as if they
all were in dispute and rivalry with each other, which should
make the heresy more irreligious, and display it in a more
naked form. And as for their letters I have them not at hand,
to dispatch them to you ; else I would have sent you copies ;
but, if the Lord will, this too I will do, when I get possession of
them. And one Asterius q from Cappadocia, a many-headed
Sophist, one of the Eusebians, whom they could not advance
into the Clergy, as having done sacrifice in the former persecu-
tion in the time of Constantius's grandfather, writes, with the
countenance of the Eusebians, a small treatise, which was on
a par with the crime of his sacrifice, yet answered their
wishes ; for in it, after comparing, or rather preferring, the
locust and the caterpillar to Christ, and saying that Wisdom
in God was other than Christ, and was the Framer as well of
Christ as of the world, he went round the Churches in Syria
and elsewhere, with introductions from the Eusebians, that
as he once had been at pains to deny the truth, so now he
9 Asterius has been mentioned above,
S. 13. note b. Philostorgius speaks of
im as adopting Semi-arian terms ; and
Acacius gives an extract from him con-
taining them. ap. Epiph. Hser. 72. 6.
and doubtless both he (to judge by his
fragments) and Eusebius write with
much less of revolting impiety than
others of their party. Thus in one of
the extracts made in the text he dis-
tinguishes after the manner of the Semi-
arians between the ymwnxJi and the
ltipu*V£yi*ii ifou/us. Again, the illus-
tration of the Sun in another much
resembles Euseb. Demonstr. iv. 5. So
does his doctrine, supr. de Deer. §. 8.
that the Son was generated to create
other beings, and that, because they
could not bear the hand of the Al-
mighty, also vid.0rat.ii.24. cf.Demonstr.
iv. 4. Eccl. Theol. i. 8. 13. Prjep. vii. 15.
but especially Eusebius's avowal, " not
that the Father was not able, did He
beget the Son ; but because those things
which were made were not able to sus-
tain the power of the Ingenerate, there-
fore speaks He through a Mediator,
contr. Sabell. i. p. 9. At the same
time if he is so to be considered,
it is an additional proof that the
Semi-arians of 325 were far less Ca-
tholic than those of 359. He seems
to be called many-headed with an
allusion to the Hydra, and to hid
activity in the Arian cause and his
fertility in writing. He wrote com-
ments on Scripture.
Arian statements of Aster ius. 101
might make free with it. The bold man intruded himself CHAP.
into forbidden places, and seating himself in the place of - —
Clerks, he used to read publicly this treatise of his, in spite
of the general indignation. The treatise is written at great
length, but portions of it are as follows : —
" For the Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ, His,
that is, God's, ' proper Power' or ' Wisdom/" but without the
article, God's Power and God's Wisdom, preaching that the 1 Cor.
proper power of God Himself was distinct, which was connatural ^ 24-
and co-existent with Him ingenerately, generative indeed of
Christ, creative of the whole world ; concerning which he teaches
in his Epistle to the Romans, thus, The invisible things of Him Rom. J ,
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by 20.
the things which are made, even His eternal power and godhead.
For as no one would say that the Godhead there mentioned was
Christ, but the Father Himself, so, as 1 think, His eternal
power is also not the Only-begotten God, but the Father who
begat Him. .And he tells us of another Power and Wisdom of
God, namely, that which is manifested through Christ, and made
known through the works themselves of His Ministry.
And again : —
Although His eternal Power and Wisdom, which truth argues
to be Unoriginate and Ingenerate, would appear certainly to be one
and the same, yet many are those powers which are one by one
created by Him, of which Christ is the First-born and Only-
begotten. All however equally depend upon their Possessor, arid
all His powers are rightly called His, who has created and uses
them ; for instance, the Prophet says that the locust, which became
a divine punishment of human sin, was called by God Him-
self, not only the power of God, but the great power. And
the blessed David too in most of the Psalms, invites, not Angels
alone, but Powers also to praise God. And while he invites them
all to the hymn, He presents before us their multitude, and is not
unwilling to call them ministers of God, and teaches them to do
His will.
6. These bold words against the Saviour did not content him, §.19.
but he went further in his blasphemies, as follows :
The Son is one among others ; for He is first of things gene-
rated, and one among intellectual natures; and as in things visible
the sun is one among what is apparent, and it shines upon the
r None but the Clergy might enter orders, iigunxoi, to enter the Chancel
the Chancel, i. e. in Service time, and then communicate. Can. 19. vid.
Hence Theodosius was made to retire also 44. Cone. t. 1. p. 788, 789. It is
by St. Ambrose. Theod v. 17. The doubtful what orders, the word itguriicoi
Council of Laodicea, said to be held is intended to include, vid. Biughara
A.D. 372, forbids any but persons in Antiqu. viii. 6. $. 7.
102 Arian statements of Asterius.
COUNC. whole world according to the command of its Maker,, so the Son,
A RIM. being one of the intellectual natures, also enlightens and shines
SELEU uPon a^ tnat are *n ^ie intellectual world.
And again he says, Once He was not, writing thus : — " And
before the Son's generation, the Father had pre-existing
knowledge how to generate ; since a physician too, before he
!p. 65, cured, had the science of curing1." And he says again : "The
m' Son was created by God's beneficent earnestness; and the
Father made Him by the superabundance of His Power." And
again : " If the will of God has pervaded all the works in
succession, certainly the Son too, being a work, has at His
will come to be and been made." Now though Asterius was
the only person to write all this, the Eusebians felt the like in
common with him.
§ . 20. 7. These are the doctrines for which they are contending; for
these they assail the Ancient Council, because its members
did not propound the like, but anathematized the Arian
heresy instead, which they were so eager to recommend. On
this account they put forward, as an advocate of their irreli-
gion, Asterius who sacrificed, a sophist too, that he might not
spare to speak against the Lord, or by a shew of reason to
mislead the simple. And they were ignorant, the shallow
men, that they were doing harm to their own cause. For the
ill savour of their advocate's idolatrous sacrifice, betrayed
still more plainly that the heresy is Christ's foe. And now
again, the general agitations and troubles which they are
exciting, are in consequence of their belief, that by their
numerous murders and their monthly Councils, at length
they will undo the sentence which has been passed against
2 vid. the Arian heresy2. But here too they seem ignorant, or to
§?32. pretend ignorance, that even before Nicasa that heresy was
held in detestation, when Artemas8 was laying its foundations,
and before him Caiaphas's assembly and that of the Phari-
sees his contemporaries. And at all times is this school of
Christ's foes detestable, and will not cease to be hateful,
* Artemas or Artemon was one of now be called Unitarianism, or that our
the chiefs of a school of heresy at Lord was a mere man. Artemas seems
Rome at the end of the second cen- to have been more known in the East;
tury. Theodotus was another, and the at least is more frequently mentioned in
more eminent. They founded separate controversy with the Ariang, e. g. by
pects. Their main tenet is what would Alexander, Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 739.
Council of Jerusalem . 1 03
the Lord's Name being full of love, and the whole creation CHAP.
bending the knee, and confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. 11.
8. Yet so it is, they have convened successive Councils §.21.
against that Ecumenical One !, and are not yet tired *. After the * P. 49,
Nicene, the Eusebians had been deposed ; however, in course n°
of time they intruded themselves without shame upon the
Churches, and began to plot against the Bishops who with-
stood them, and to substitute in the Church men of their
own heresy. Thus they thought to hold Councils at their
pleasure, as -having those who concurred with them, whom
they had ordained on purpose for this very object2. Accord- 2p- 84,
ingly, they assemble at Jerusalem, and there they write110
thus : —
The Holy Council assembled in Jerusalem u by the grace of
God, to the Church of God which is in Alexandria, and to all
throughout Egypt, Thebais, Libya, and Pentapolis, also to the
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons throughout the world, health in
the Lord.
To all of us who have come together into one place from
different provinces, to the great celebration, which we have held
at the consecration of the Saviour's Martyry x, built to God the
1 It will be observed, that the Euse- of the heretical party, vid. supr. p. 76,
bian or court party from 341 to 358, note k. as Ammianus in p. 75, note
contained in it two element?, the more h. The same thing is meant in Nazi-
religious or Semi-arian which tended anzen 'swell-known declaration against
to Catholicism, and ultimately coa- Councils, u Neversaw I Council brought
lesced with it, the other the proper to a useful issue, nor remedying, but
Arian or Anonuean which was essen- rather increasing existing evils." Ep.
tially heretical. During the period 130.
mentioned, it wore for the most part u This Council at Jerusalem was a
the Semi-arian profession. Athanasius continuation of one held at Tyre at
as well as Hilary does justice to the which Athan. was condemned. It was
Semi-arians ; but Athanasius does not very numerously attended ; by Bishops,
seem to have known or estimated the (as Eusebius says, Vit. Const, iv. 43.)
quarrel between them and the Arians from Macedonia, Pannonia, Thrace,
as fully as Hilary. Accordingly, while Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia, Egypt, and
the former is bent in this treatise in bring- Libya. One account speaks of the
ing out the great fact of the variations of number as being above 200. He says
the heretical party, Hilary, wishing to that" an innumerable multitude from all
commend the hopeful Semi-arians to the provinces accompanied them." It was
Gallic Church, makes excuses for them, the second great Council in Constan-
ou the ground of the necessity of expla- tine's reign, and is compared by Euse-
nations of the Nicene formulary, " ne- bius (invidiously) to the Nicene, c. 47.
cessitatem hanc furor hereticus im- At this Council Arius was solemnly
ponit." Hil. de Syn. 63. vid. also 62. received, as the Synodal Letter goes on
and 28. At the same time, Hilary to say.
himself bears witness quite as strongly x This Church, called the Martyry
as Athan. to the miserable variations or Testimony, was built over the spot
104 Arius re-admitted at Jerusalem.
COUNC. King of all, and to His Christ, by the zeal of the most religious
ATIIM. Emperor Constantine, the grace of Christ provided a higher grati-
ficati°nJ m tne conduct of that most religious Emperor himself,
who, by letters of his own, banishing from the Church of God
all jealousy, and driving far away all envy, by means of which,
the members of Christ had been for a long season in dissention,
exhorted us, what was our duty, with open and peaceable
mind to receive Arius and his friends, whom for a while jealousy
which hates virtue had contrived to expel from the Church. And
the most religious Emperor bore testimony in their behalf by
his letter to the exactness of their faith, which, after inquiry of
them, and personal communication with them by word of mouth,
he acknowledged, and made known to us, subjoining to his own
letters their orthodox teaching in writing7, which we all con-
fessed to be sound and ecclesiastical. And he reasonably recom-
mended that they should be received and united to the Church
of God, as you will know yourselves from the transcript of the
same Epistle, which we have transmitted to your reverences. We
believe that yourselves also, as if recovering the very members of
your own body, will experience great joy and gladness, in ac-
knowledging and recovering your own bowels, your own brethren
and fathers; since not only the Presbyters who are friends
of Arius are given back to you, but also the whole Christian
people and the entire multitude, which on occasion of the afore-
said men have a long time been in dissension among you. More-
over it were fitting, now that you know for certain what has
passed, and that the men have communicated with us and have
been received by such a Holy Council, that you should with all
readiness hail this your coalition and peace with your own
members, specially since the articles of the faith which they have
published preserve indisputable the universally confessed aposto-
lical tradition and teaching.
§. 22. 9. This was the first of their Councils, and in it they were
speedy in divulging their views, and could not conceal them.
made sacred by our Lord's death, ten from Him before all the ages God
burial, and resurrection, in commemo- and Word, through whom all things
ration of the discovery of the Holy were made, both in the heavens and
Cross, and has been described from upon earth;" afterwards it professes to
Eusebius in the preface to the Trans- have " received the faith from the holy
lation of S. Cyril's Catechetical Lee- Evangelists," and to believe" as all the
tures, p. xxiv. It was begun A. T). 326, Catholic Church and as the Scriptures
and dedicated at this date, A.D. 335, teach." The Synodal Letter in the
on Saturday the 13th of September, text adds " apostolical tradition and
The 14th however is the feast of the teaching." Arius might safely appeal
Exaltatio S. Crucis both in East and to Scripture and the Church for a creed
"West. which did not specify the point in con-
y This is supposed to be the same troversy. In his letter to Eusebius of
Confession which is preserved by Socr. Nicomedia before the Nicene Council
i. 26. and Soz. ii. 27. and was presented where he does state the distinctive
to Constantine by Arius in 330. It articles of his heresy he appeals to him
says no more than a And in the Lord as a fellow pupil in the School of Lu-
Jesus Christ His Son, who was begot- cian, not to tradition. Theod. Hist. i.4.
Council at Antioch, and first creed of Eusebians. 105
For when they said that they had banished all jealousy, and, CHAP.
after the expulsion of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, — • —
recommended the reception of Arius and his friends, they
shewed, that their measures against Athanasius himself
then, and before against all the other Bishops who withstood
them, had for their object their receiving Anus's party, and
introducing the heresy into the Church. But although they
had approved in this Council all Anus's malignity, and had
ordered to receive his party into communion, as they had set
the example, yet feeling that even now they were short of
their wishes, they assembled a Council at Antioch under
colour of the so-called Dedication z ; and, since they were in
general and lasting odium for their heresy, they publish
different letters, some of this sort, and some of that; and
what they wrote in one letter was as follows : —
We have not been followers of Arius, — how could Bishops, ist Con-
such as we, follow a Presbyter ? — nor did we receive any other fession
faith beside that which has been handed down from the begin- ^ Istof
ninga. But, after taking on ourselves to examine and to verify his tjoch
faith, we have admitted him rather than followed him j as you A. D!
will understand from our present avowals, 341.
For we have been taught from the first, to believe in one
God, the God of the Universe, the Framer and Preserver of all
things both intellectual and sensible.
And in One Son of God, Only-begotten, existing before all
ages, and being with the Father who begat Him, by whom all
things were made, both visible and invisible, who in the last
days according to the good pleasure of the Father came down,
1 i. e. the dedication of the Domini- though not as /row this Council, which
cum Aureum, which had been ten took at least some of them from more
years in building, vid. the description ancient sources. It is remarkable that
of it in Euseb. Vit. Const, iii. 50. This S. Hilary calls this Council an assembly
Council is one of great importance of Saints, de Syn. 32. but it is his
in the history, though it was not at- course throughout to look at these
tended by more than 90 Bishops ac- Councils on their hopeful side. vid.
cording to Ath. infr. or 97 according note t.
to Hilary de Syn. 28. The Eusebians a The Council might safely appeal
had written to the Roman see against to antiquity, since, with Arius in the
Athan. and eventually called on it Confession noticed supr. note y, they
to summon a Council. Accordingly, did not touch on the point in dispute.
Julius proposed a Council at Rome ; The number of their formularies, three
they refused to come, and instead held or four, shews that they had a great
this meeting at Antioch. Thus in a difficulty in taking any view which
certain sense it is a protest of the East would meet the wishes and express
against the Pope's authority, Twenty- the sentiments of one and all. The one
five Canons are attributed to this that follows, which is their first, is as
Council, which have been received meagre as Arius's, quoted note y.
into the Code of the Catholic Church,
106
Creed of the Dedication at Antioch,
COUNC. and took flesh of the Virgin, and fulfilled all His Father's will ;
ARIM. an(j suffered and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and
SELEU s^ttetn on tne rignt nanc^ °f tne Father, and cometh again to
judge quick and dead, and remaineth King and God unto all
ages.
And we believe also in the Holy Ghost; and if it be necessary
to add, we believe concerning the resurrection of the flesh, and
the life everlasting.
§. 23. 10. Here follows what they published next at the same
Dedication in another Epistle, being dissatisfied with the
first, and devising something newer and fuller :
iid Con-
fession
or 2d
of An-
tioch,
A. D.
341.
1 Vid.
xthCon
fession,
infr.
$.30.
We believe b, conformably to the evangelical and apostolical
tradition, in One God, the Father Almighty, the Framer, and
Maker, and Preserver of the Universe, from whom are all
things.
And in One Lord Jesus Christ, His Only-begotten Son, God,
by whom are all things, who was begotten before all ages from
the Father, God from God, whole from whole, sole from sole >,
perfect from perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord, Living
Word, Living Wisdom, true Light, Way, Truth, Resurrection,
Shepherd, Door, both unalterable and unchangeable0; unvarying
image d of the Godhead, Substance, Will, Power, and Glory of the
b This formulary is that known as
the Formulary of the Dedication. It
is quoted as such by Socr. ii. 39, 40.
Soz. iv. 15. and infr. $. 29. Sozomen
says that the Eusehians attributed it to
Lucian, alleging that they had found a
copy written by his own hand ; but he
decides neither for or against it him-
self. Hist. iii. 5. And the Auctor de
Trinitate, (in Theocloret's works, t. 5.)
allows that it is Lucian's, but interpo-
lated. Dial. iii. init. vid. Routh, Reliqu.
Sacr. vol. iii. p. 294 — 6. who is in favour
of its genuineness; as are Bull, Cave,
and S. Basnage. Tillemont and Con-
stant take the contrary side ; the latter
observing (ad Hilar. de Synod. 28.) that
Athanasius, infr. §. 36, speaks of parts
of it as Acacius's, and that Acacius
attributes its language to Asterius.
The Creed is of a much higher cast of
doctrine than the two former, (§. 22.
and note y,) containing some of the
phrases which in the fourth century
became badges of Semi-arianism.
c These strong words and those which
follow, whether Lucian's or not, mark the
great difference between this confession
and the foregoing. It would seem as
if the Eusebians had at first tried the
assembled Bishops with a negative
confession, and finding that they would
not accept it, had been forced upon one
of a more orthodox character. It is
observable too that even the Council
of Jerusalem, but indirectly received
the Confession on which they re-
admitted Arius, though they gave it
a real sanction. The words " un-
alterable and unchangeable" are formal
Anti-arian symbols, as the r^sa-re* or
alterable was one of the most charac-
teristic part of Arius's creed, vid. Orat.
i. §. 35, &c.
d On awa^XXaxTaf tixuv xatr evtri'etVj
which was synonymous with ifttuvfiatj
vid. int'r. § 38. and one of the symbols of
Semi-arianism, (not as if it did not ex-
press truth, but because it marked the
limit of Semi -arian approximation to the
absolute truth,) something has been said,
supr. p. 35, note u. It was in order to
secure the true sense of «-r«£«XX«xrtf»
that the Council adopted the word
oftooufftav. 'AcTajaAXaxrav is accordingly
used as a latniliar word by Athan.
de Deer. supr. $. 20. 24. Orat.Tii.
§. 36. contr. Gent. 41. 46 fin. Philo-
storgius ascribing it to Asterius, and
Acacius quotes a passage
from his
being second Creed of Eusebians, Semi-arian. 107
Father; the first born of every creature, who was in the beginning CHAP.
with God, God the Word, as it is written in the Gospel, and the 1L
Word was God ; by whom all things were made, and in whom
all things consist ; who in the last days descended from above,
and was born of a Virgin according to the Scriptures, and was
made Man, Mediator6 between God and man, and Apostle of our
faith, and Prince of life, as He says, / came down from heaven,
not io do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me; who
suffered for us and rose again on the third day, and ascended
into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and
is coming again with glory and power, to judge quick and dead.
And in the Holy Ghost, who is given to those who believe for
comfort, and sanctification, and initiation, as also our Lord Jesus
Christ enjoined His disciples, saying, Go ye, leach all nations,
baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Ghost ; that of Father being truly Father, and of Son
being truly Son, and of the Holy Ghost being truly Holy Ghost,
the names not being given without meaning or effect, but de-
noting accurately the peculiar subsistence, rank, and glory of
each that is named, so that they are three in subsistence, and in
agreement one f.
writings containing it. (vid. supr. note
q.) Acacius at the same time forcibly
expresses what is meant by the word,
TO txTtiTov xcei Tittv-s Ixft.a.'yiTev TOU
ftov vrtt autr'nus ; and S. Alexander
before him, TJJV xxra, -ruvree, oftei-
ertjret alrau ix (fiifftws KirofjiaQdfiivo;.
Theod. Hist. i. 3. (as, in the legend, the
impression of our Lord's face on the
cloth at His crucifixion.) Xagaxr^,
Hebr. i. 3. contains the same idea.
u An image not inanimate, not framed
by the hand, nor work of art and
imagination, (Ir/vwajJ but a living
image, yea, the very life (alrooutree,) ;
ever preserving the unvarying (TO az-a-
£aAXr/,xT«v), not in likeness of fashion,
but in its very substance." Basil, contr.
Eunom. i. 18. The Auctor de Trinitate
says, speaking of the word in this very
creed, u Will in nothing varying from
will (a.<jru.pci\\K,x.Te;} is the same will ;
and power nothing varying from power
is the same power ; and glory nothing
varying from glory is the same glory."
The Macedonian replies " Unvarying
I say, the same I say not." Dial. iii. p.
993. Athan. de Deer. 1. c. seems to say
the same. That is, in the Catholic
sense, the image was not «<ra£«A.A.«xTas,
if there was any difference, unless He
was one with Him of whom He was
the image, vid. Hil. supra, p. 76. note i.
e This statement perhaps is the most
Catholic in the Creed; not that the
former are not more explicit in them-
selves, or that in a certain true sense
our Lord may not be called a Mediator
before He became incarnate, but be-
cause the Arians, even Eusebius, seem
to have made His mediatorship consist
essentially in His divine nature, whereas
this Confession speaks of our Lord as
made Mediator when He came in the
flesh. On the other hand, Eusebius,
like Philo and the Platonists, considers
Him as made in the beginning, the
" Eternal Priest of the Father,"
Demonst. v. 3. de Laud. C. p. 503
fin. " an intermediate divine power,"
p. 525. " mediating and joining gene-
rated substance to the Ingenerate," p.
528. vid. infr. pp. 115. and 119. notes
f. and o.
' This phrase, which is of a more
Arian character than any other part of
the Confession, is justified by S. Hilary
on the ground, that when the Spirit is
mentioned, agreement is the best sym-
bol of unity, de Syn. 32. It is pro-
tested against in the Sardican Con-
fession. Theod. Hist. ii. 6. p. 846.
A similar passage occurs in Origen,
contr. Cels. viii. 12. to which Huet.
Origen. ii. 2. n. 3. compares Nova-
tian. de Trin. 22. The Arians insisted
on the " oneness in agreement" as a
fulfilment of such texts as " I and my
Father are one ;" but this subject will
come before us in Orat. iii. §. 10. vid,
infr. §. 48.
108 Creed of Theophronius, at Antioch,
COUNC. Holding then this faith, and holding it in the presence of God
A RIM. and Christ, from beginning to end, we anathematize every here-
AXD tjcaj heterodoxy g. And if any teaches, beside the sound and right
k ELEU- faith of the Scriptures, that time, or season, or age h, either is or
has been before the generation of the Son, be he anathema. Or
1 vid. if any one says, that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures ',
P- 10» or an offspring as one of the offsprings, or a work as one of the
3 u* works, and not the aforesaid articles one after another, as the
divine Scriptures have delivered, or if he teaches or preaches
beside what we received, be he anathema. For all that has been
delivered in the divine Scriptures, whether by Prophets or Apo-
stles, do we truly and conscientiously both believe and follow1.
§. 24. 11. And one Theophronius k, Bishop of Tyana, put forth
before them all the following statement of his personal faith.
And they subscribed it, accepting the faith of this man : —
iiidCon- God knows, whom I call as a witness upon my soul, that so
orl'c * believe:— in God the Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker
orc
of An- °^ ^le Universe, from whom are all things :
tioch, And in His Only-begotten Son, God, Word, Power, and
A.D. Wisdom, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things;
341 . wno was begotten from the Father before the ages, perfect God
from perfect God ! and being with God in subsistence, and in the
2 The whole of these anathemas are reason for insisting on it in the previous
an Eusebian addition. The Council centuries had been the Sabellian doc-
anathematizes " every heretical hete- trine, which considered the title "Word"
rodoxy ;" not, as Athanasius observes, when applied to our Lord to be ade-
supra, §. 7. the Arian. cjuately explained by the ordinary sense
h The introduction of these words of the term, as a word spoken by us.
" time," " age," &c. allows them still to vid. on the \oyot ifotoxos infr.
"
not;" for our Lord was, as they held, sisted on His <ro r'&tiot, perfection,
before time, but still created. which became almost synonymous
1 This emphatic mention of Scrip- with His personality. Thus the
ture is also virtually an Arian evasion ; Apollinarians, e. g. denied that our
to hold certain truths, " as Scripture Lord was perfect man, because His
has delivered," might either mean person was not human. Athan. contr.
because and as in fact, or so far as, and Apoll. i. 2. Hence Justin, Tatian,
admitted of a silent reference to them- are earnest in denying that our Lord
selves, as interpretators of Scripture. was a portion divided from the Di\ine
k Nothing is known of Theophronius; Substance, ou xnr KvoTopw, &c. &c.
his Confession is in great measure a Just. Tryph. 128. Tatian. contr. Grsec.
relapse into Arianism proper; that is, 5. And Ath^n. condemns the notion
as far as the absence of characteristic of " the Aoya; l» ru 6<.n areXJu,
symbols is a proof of a wish to intro- yiwvOtis riteios. Orat. iv. 11. The
duce the heresy. The phrase " perfect Arians then, as being the especial
God" will be mentioned in the next opponents of the Sabellians, insisted
note. on nothing so much as our Lord's being
1 Tt need scarcely be said, that " per- a real, living, substantial, Word. vid.
feet from perfect" is a symbol on which Eusebius passim. " The Father,"
the Catholics laid stress, Athan. Orat. says Acacius against Marcellus, " be-
ii. 35. Epiph. Hser. 76. p. 945. but it gat the Only-begotten, alone alone, and
admitted of an evasion. An especial perfect perfect ; for there is nothing
being tltird ('reed of Eusebiits, negative.
109
last days descended, and was born of the Virgin according to the CHAP.
Scriptures, and was made man, and suffered, and rose again from L
the dead, and ascended into the heavens, and sat down on the
right hand of His Father, and cometh again with glory and
power to judge quick and dead, and remaineth for ever :
And in the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth,
which also God promised by His Prophet to pour out upon His
servants, and the Lord promised to send to His disciples : which
also He sent, as the Acts of the Apostles witness.
But if any one teaches, or holds in his mind, aught beside this
faith, be he anathema; or with Marcellus of Ancyra'", or Sabellius,
or Paul of Samosata, be he anathema, both himself and those who
communicate with him.
12. Ninety Bishops met at the Dedication under the Con- §. 25.
sulate of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the 14th of the Indic-
tion", Constantiusthe most irreligious1 being present. Having ' p. 90,
thus conducted matters at Antioch at the Dedication, thinking no
that their composition was deficient still, and fluctuating
moreover in their own views, again they draw up afresh
another formulary, after a few months, professedly concerning
the faith, and despatch Narcissus, Maris, Theodorus, and
imperfect in the Father, wherefore
neither is there in the Son, but the
Son's perfection is the genuine offspring
of His perfection, and superperfection."
ap. Epiph. Hser. 72. 7 . TtA«/»f then was a
relative word, varying with the subject-
matter, vid. Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 138.
and when the Arians said that our
Lord was perfect God, they meant,
" perfect, in that sense in which He
is God" — i. e. as a secondary divi-
nity— Nay, in one point of view they
would use the term of His divine
Nature more freely than the Catholics
sometimes had. For, Hippolytus, e. g.
though of course really holding His
perfection from eternity as the Son,
yet speaks of His condescension in
coming upon earth as a kind of com-
pletion of His Sonship, He becoming
thus a Son a second time ; whereas the
Arians holding no real condescension
or assumption of a really new state,
could not hold that our Lord was in any
respect essentially other than He had
been before the incarnation. " Nor
was the Word," says Hippolytus,
" before the flesh and by Himself,
perfect Son, though being perfect Word,
Only-begotten ; nor could the flesh sub-
sist by itself without the Word, because
that in the Word it has its consistence :
thus then He was manifested One per-
fect Son of God." contr. Noet. 15.
m Marcellus wrote his work against
Asterius in 335, the year of the Arian
Council of Jerusalem,which at once took
cognizance of it, and cited Marcellus to
appear before them. The same year a
Council held at Constantinople con-
demned and deposed him, about the time
that Arius came thither for re-admission
into the Church. From that time his
name is frequently introduced into the
Arian anathemas, vid. Macrostich, §.
26. By adding those " who communicate
with him," the Eusebians intended to
strike at the Roman see, which had
acquitted Marcellus in a Council held
in June of the same year.
n The commencement and the origin
of this mode of dating are unknown.
It seems to have been introduced be-
tween A.D. 313 and 315. The Indic-
tion was a cycle of 15 years, and
began with the month of September.
S. Athanasius is the first ecclesiastical
author who adopts it.
110
Creed sent into Gaul,
COUNC. Mark into Gaul °. And they, as being sent from the Council,
AAND deliver the following document to Constans Augustus of
SELEU. blessed memory1', and to all who were there :
ivthCon- We believe li in One God, the Father Almighty,, Creator and
fession, Maker of all things ; from whom the whole family in heaven and
or 4th of on garth js named.
Antioch, An(j jn pjjg Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who
342. before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God,
Light from Light, by whom all things were made in the heavens
and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word, and Wisdom,
and Power, and Life, and True Light; who in the last days was
made man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin; who was
crucified, and dead, and buried, and rose again from the dead the
third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the
right hand of the Father ; and is coming at the end of the world,
to judge quick and dead, and to render to every one according
to his works ; whose Kingdom endures indissolubly into infinite
agesr; for He shall be seated on the right hand of the Father,
not only in this world but in that which is to come.
0 This deputation had it in purpose
to gain the Emperor Constans to the
Eusebian party. They composed a
new Confession with this object. Theo-
dore of Heraclea, (who made commen-
taries on Scripture and is said to have
been an elegant writer,) Maris and
Narcissus, were all Eusebians ; but
Mark was a Semi-arian. As yet the
Eusebian party were making use of the
Semi-arians, but their professed Creed
had already much degenerated from
Lucian's at the Dedication.
P Constans had lately become master
of two thirds of the Empire by the death
of his elder brother Constantine, who
had made war upon him and fallen in
an engagement. He was at this time
only 22 years of age. His enemies
represent his character in no favourable
light, but, for whatever reason, he
sided with the Catholics, and S. Atha-
nasius, who had been honourably
treated by him in Gaul, speaks of
him in the language of gratitude. In
his apology to Constantius, he says,
" thy brother of blessed memory filled
the Churches with offerings," and he
speaks of" the grace given him through
baptism." §. 7. Constans was mur-
dered by Magnentius in 350, and one
of the calumnies against Athanasius
was that he had sent letters to the
murderer.
* The fourth, fifth, and sixth Con-
fessions are the same, and with them
agree the Creed of Philippopolis ( A. D,
347, or 344 according to Mansi). These
extend over a period of nine years, A. D.
342 — 351, (or 15 or 16 according to
Baronius and Mansi, who place the 6th
Confession, i. e. the 1st Sirmian, at 357,
358 respectively,) and make the sta-
tionary period of Arianism. The two
parties of which the heretical body was
composed were kept together, not only
by the court, but by the rise of the Sabel-
lianism of Marcellus (A. D. 335) and
Photinus (about 342). This too would
increase their strength in the Church,
and is the excuse, which Hilary himself
urges, for their frequent Councils. Still
they do not seem to be able to escape
from the argument of Athanasius, that,
whereas new Councils are for new-
heresies, if but one new heresy had
risen, but one new Council was neces-
sary. If these four Confessions say
the same thing, three of them must be
superfluous, vid. infr. §. 32. However,
in spite of the identity of the Creed, the
difference in their Anathemas is very
great, as we shall see.
r These words, which answer to
those afterwards added at the second
General Council (381 — 3) are directed
against the doctrine of Marcellus, who
taught that the Word was but a divine
energy, manifested in Christ and re-
tiring from Him at the consummation
of all things, when the manhood or
flesh of Christ would consequently no
being fourth creed of Eiisebia ns, negative. Ill
And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete; which, having CHAP.
promised to the Apostles, He sent forth after His ascension into I.
heaven, to teach them and to remind of all things; through
whom also shall be sanctified the souls of those who sincerely
believe in Him.
But those who say, that the Son was from nothing, or from
other subsistence and not from God, and, there was time when
He was not, the Catholic Church regards as aliens s.
13. As if dissatisfied with this, they hold their meeting §.26.
again after three years, and dispatch Eudoxius, Martyrius, and
Macedonius of Cilicia l, and some others with them, to the
parts of Italy, to carry with them a faith written at great
length, with numerous additions over and above those which
have gone before. They went abroad with these, as if they
had devised something new.
We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Creator andvthCon
Maker of all things, from whom the whole family in heaven and
on earth is named.
longer reign. " How can we admit,"
says Marcellus in Eusebius, " that
that flesh, which is from the earth
and profited! nothing, should co-
exist with the "Word in the ages to
come as serviceable to Him?" de Eccl.
Theol. iii. 8. Again, " If He has
received a beginning of His Kingdom
not more than four hundred years
since, it is no paradox that He who
gained that Kingdom so short a while
since, should be said by the Apostle to
deliver it up to God. What are we
told of the human flesh, which the
"Word bore for us, not four hundred
years since ? will the Word have it in
the ages to come, or only to the judg-
ment season?" iii. 17. And, " Should
any ask concerning that flesh which is
in the Word having become immortal,
we say to him, that we count it not
safe to pronounce on points of which
we learn not for certain from divine
Scripture." cont. Marc. ii. 4.
8 S. Hilary, as we have seen above,
p. 67. by implication calls this the
Nicene Anathema; and so it is in the
respects in which he speaks of it ; but
it omits many of the Nicene clauses,
and with them the condemnation of
many of the Arian articles. The
especial point which it evades is our
Lord's eternal existence, substituting
for " once He was not," " there was
time when He was not," and leaving
out " before His generation He was
not," " created," " alterable" and
" mutable." It seems to have been
considered sufficient for Gaul, as used
now, for Italy as in the 5th Confession
or Macrostich, and for Africa as in
the creed of Philippopolis.
1 Little is known of Macedonius who
was Bishop of Mopsuestia, or of Mar-
tyrius; and too much of Eudoxius. This
Long Confession, or Macrostich, which
follows, is remarkable for the first signs
of the presence of that higher party of
Semi-arians who ultimately joined the
Church. It is observable also that the
more Catholic portions occur in the
Anathemas, as if they were forced in
indirectly, and that with an incon-
sistency with the other statements, for
not only the word " substance" does
not occur, but the Son is said to be
made. At this date the old Semi-
arians, as Eusebius, Asterius, and Aca-
cius were either dying off, or degene-
rating into most explicit impiety ; the
new school of Semi-arians consisting for
the most part of a younger generation.
St. Cyril delivered his Catechetical
Lectures two or three years later than
this Creed, viz. 347 or 348. Silvanus,
Eleusius, Meletius, Eusebius of Samo-
sata are later still.
or Ma-
crostich,
A. D.
345.
112 The Macrostich Creed sent into Italy.
COUNC. And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who
A KIM. before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God,
SBLEU L*gnt from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and
* on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word and Wisdom and
Power and Life and True Light, who in the last days was
made man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin, crucified and
dead and buried, and rose again from the dead the third day,
and was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand
of the Father, and is coming at the end of the world to judge
quick and dead, and to render to every one according to His
works, whose Kingdom endures unceasingly unto infinite ages;
for He sitteth on the right hand of the Father not only in this
world, but also in that which is to come.
And we believe in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete, which,
having promised to the Apostles, He sent forth after the ascension
into heaven, to teach them and to remind of all things ; through
whom also shall be sanctified the souls of those who sincerely
believe in Him.
But those who say, (1) that the Son was from nothing, or from
other subsistence and not from God ; (2) and that there was a time
or age when He was not, the Catholic and Holy Church regards
as aliens. Likewise those who say, (3) that there are three Gods :
(4) or that Christ is not God ; (5) or that before the ages He was
neither Christ nor Son of God; (6) or that Father and Son, or
Holy Ghost, are the same; (7) or that the Son is Ingenerate; or
that the Father generated the Son, not by choice or will; the
Holy and Catholic Church anathematizes.
(1.) For neither is safe to say that the Son is from nothing, (since
this is no where spoken of Him in divinely inspired Scripture,)
nor again of any other subsistence before existing beside the
Father, but from God alone do we define Him genuinely to be
generated. For the divine Word teaches that the Ingenerate and
Unoriginate, the Father of Christ, is One".
(2.) Nor may we, adopting the hazardous position, " There was
once when He was not," from unscriptural sources, imagine
any interval of time before Him, but only the God who generated
Him apart from time; for through Him both times and ages came
to be. Yet we must not consider the Son to be co-unoriginate
and co-ingenerate with the Father ; for no one can be properly
called Father or Son of one who is co-unoriginate and co-ingene-
rate with Himx. But we acknowledge that the Father who alone
u It is observable that here and in 62, note e.
the next paragraph the only reasons x They argue, after the usual Arian
they give against using the only two manner, that the term " Son" essenti-
Arian formulas which they condemn is ally implies beginning, and excludes
that they are not found in Scripture, the title " co-unoriginate ;" whereas
which leaves the question of their truth the Catholics contended (as alluded to
untouched. Here, in their explanation supr. p. 98, note n.) that the word
of the ig tlx. OVTU*, or from nothing, they Father implied a continuity of nature,
do but deny it with Eusebius's evasion ; that is, a co-eternal existence with the
that nothing can be from nothing, and Father, vid. p. 10, note u.
every thing must be from God. vid. p.
being the fifth of the Eusebians, Semi-arian. 113
is Unoriginate and Ingenerate, hath generated inconceivably and CHAP.
incomprehensively ; and that the Son hath been generated before n.
ages, and in no wise to be ingenerate Himself like the Father, but
to have the Father who generated Him as His origin ; for the 1 Cor.
Head of Christ is God. n>3'
(3.) Nor again, in confessing three realities ' and three Persons, ] «*«V
of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the <"ara
Scriptures, do we therefore make Gods three ; since we acknow-
123,
safes this to all others bountifully.
(4.) Nor again in saying that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
is the one only God, the only Ingenerate ; do we therefore deny
that Christ also is Go:l before ages : as the disciples of Paul of
Samosata, who say that after the incarnation He was by advance3 ' I* *•£«-
made God, from being made by nature a mere man. For we ***•*• P-
acknowledge, that though He be subordinate to His Father and?0' note
God, yet, being before ages begotten of God, He is God per-
fect according to nature and true, and not first man and then
God, but first God and then becoming man for us, and never
having been deprived of being y.
(5.) We abhor besides, and anathematize those who make a pre-
tence of saying that He is but the mere word of God and unexisting,
having His being in another, — now as if pronounced, as some speak,
now as mental % — holding that He -was not Christ or Son of God or
y These strong words, fftov KKT
TtAi/av x.ett u.\n(/n are of a different cha-
racter from any which have occurred
in the Arian Confessions. They can
only be explained away hy considering
them used in contrast to the Samosa-
tene doctrine ; Paul saying that that
dignity, which the Arians ascribed
to our Lord before His birth in the
flesh, was bestowed on Him after
it. vid. p. 116, ref. 1. Thus " perfect
according to nature" and " true," will
not be directly connected with a God"
so much as opposed to, u by advance,"
" by adoption." &c. p, 108, note 1.
z The use of the \\ords ivbiii&irof and
W£«<pa£/xof, mental and pr&nounced, to
distinguish the two senses of xdyog,
reason and word, came from the school
of the Stoics, and is found in Philo,
and was under certain limitations
allowed in Catholic theology. Da-
masc. F. O. ii. 21. To use either
absolutely and to the exclusion of
the other would have involved some
form of Sabellianism, or Arianism as
the case might be ; but each might cor-
rect the defective sense of either. S. The-
ophilus speaks of our Lord as at once
and ireoqo^x.'it. ad Autol. ii. 10
and 22. S. Cyril as ivtiixfara;, in Joann.
p. 39. on the other hand he says, " This
pronounced word of ours, <r£«<p<j£/xcf, is
generated from mind and unto mind,
and seems to be other than that which
stirs in the heart, &c. &c. . . so too the
Son of God proceeding from the Father
without division, is the expression and
likeness of what is proper to Him, being
a subsistent Word, and living from a
Living Father." Thesaur. p. 47. When
the Fathers deny that our Lord is the
V£o<f>o£txos >.oyo;, they only mean that
that title is not, even as far as its phi-
losophical idea went, an adequate re-
presentative of Him, a word spoken
being insubstantive, vid. Athan. Orat.
ii. 35. Hil. de Syn. 46. Cyr. Catech. xi.
10. Damas. Ep. ii. p. 203. nee prola-
tivum ut generationem ei demas, for this
was the Arian doctrine. " The Son [says
Eunomius] is other than the Mental
Word, or Word in intellectual action, of
which partaking and being filled He is
called the Pronounced W^ord, and ex-
pressive of the Father's substance, that
is, the Son." Cyril in Joann. p. 31.
the Gnostics seem to have held the
114
The Macrostich Creed, sent into Italy,
COUNC,
ARIM.
AND
SELEU
1 p. 107,
note e.
Gen. 1,
26.
2 vid. p.
120,
notes p
and q.
mediator1 or image of God before ages; but that He first be-
came Christ and Son of God, when He took our flesh from the
Virgin, not four hundred years since. For they will have it that
then Christ began His Kingdom, and that it will have an end
after the consummation of all and the judgment a. Such are the
disciples of Marcellus and Scotinusb of Galatian Ancyra, who,
equally with Jews, negative Christ's existence before ages, and His
Godhead, and unending Kingdom, upon pretence of supporting
the divine Monarchy. We, on the contrary, regard Him not as
simply God's pronounced word or mental, but as Living God and
Word, existing in Himself, and Son of God and Christ; being
and abiding with His Father before ages, and that not in fore-
knowledge only c, and ministering to Him for the whole framing
whether of things visible or invisible. For He it is, to whom the
Father said, Let Us make man in Our image, offer Our likeness-, who
also was seen in His own Person d by the patriarchs, gave the law,
f. Iren. Hser. ii. 12. n. 5.
Marcellus is said by Eusebius to have
considered our Lord as first the one
and then the other. Eccl. Theol. ii. 15.
Sabellius thought our Lord the vrgoQigi-
KOS according to Epiph. Hser. p. 398.
Damasc. Heer. 62. Paul of Samo-
sata the Ivtidfaros. Epiph. Heer. 65.
passim. Eusebius, Eccles. Theol. ii.
17. describes our Lord as the
while he disowns it.
a This passage seems taken from
Eusebius, and partly from Marcellus's
own words, vid. supr. note r. S. Cyril
speaks of his doctrine in like terms.
Catech. xv. 27.
b i. e. Photinus of Sirmium, the pupil
of Marcellus is meant, who published
his heresy about 343. A similar play
upon words is found in the case of other
names ; though Lucifer seems to think
that his name was really Scotinus and
that his friends changed it. de non pare,
pp. 203, 220, 226. Thus Noetus is called
uvwrtf. Epiph. Haer. 57. 2 fin. and 8.
Eudoxius, atififyof. Lucifer, pro Athan.
i. p. 65. Moriend. p. 258. Eunomians
among the Latins, (by a confusion with
Anomcean,) ava^a/, or sine lege. Cod.
Can. Ixi. 1. ap. Leon. Op. t. 3. p. 443.
Vigilantius dormitantius, Jerom. contr.
Vigil, init. Aerius ui^iov •xnv^.a. 'iff%ti.
Epiph. Hser. 75. 6 tin. Of Arius,
*Agtf, agin. vid. supr. p. 91, note q.
Gregory, o vvfru^ui- Anast. Hod. 10.
p. 186. Eutjches, Wrt^jjj, &c. &c.
Photinus seems to have brought out
more fully the heresy of Marcellus ; both
of whom, as all Sabellians excepting
Patripassians, differed from the Arians
mainly in this point alone, when it was
that our Lord came into being ; the
Arians said before the worlds, the Sa-
mosatenes, Photinians, &c. said on His
human birth ; both parties considered
Him a creature, and that the true Word
and Wisdom were attributes or ener-
gies of Almighty God. This Lucifer
well observes to Constantius in the course
of one of the passages above quoted,
" Quid interesse arbitraris inter te et
Paulum Samosatenum, vel eum turn
ejus discipulum tuum conscotinum, nisi
quia tu ante omnia dicas, ille vero post
omnia?" p. 203, 4. A subordinate differ-
ence was this, that the Samosatene, Pho-
tinian, &c. considered our Lord to be
really gifted with the true Word, whereas
the Arian did scarcely more than con-
sider Him framed after the pattern of
it. Photinus was condemned, after
this Council, at Sardica, (347 if not
344,) and if not by Catholics at least by
Eusebians ; at Milan (348) by the Ca-
tholics ; and perhaps again in 351 ; at
Sirmium his see, by the Eusebians in
351, when he was deposed. He was
an eloquent man and popular in his
diocese, and thus maintained his ground
for some years after his condemnation.
e " This passage of the Apostle,"
Rom.i. ]." [Marcellus] Iknownotwhy
perverts, instead of declared, o^fftivros,
making it predestined, ^ot^fffivratj that
the Son may be such as they who are
predestined at foreknowledge." Euseb.
contr. Marc. i. 2. Paul of Samosata also
considered our Lord Son by foreknow-
ledge, f/je'yvuffti. vid. Routh. Eeliqu.
t. 2. p. 466. and Eunomius, Apol. 24.
d auTov£offu<ffus and so Cyril. Hier.
Catech. xv. 14 and 17. Jt means,
" not in personation," and Philo con-
trasting divine appearances with those
being thejiflli of the Eu-sebians, Seminarian. 115
spoke by the prophets, and at last, became man, and manifested CHAP.
His own Father to all men, and reigns to never-ending ages.
For Christ has taken no recent dignity1, but we have believed1 p 113,
Him to be perfect from the first, and like in all things tothenotev-
Father c.
(6.) And those who say that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost
are the same,, and irreligiously take the Three Names of one and
the same Reality2 and Person, we justly proscribe from the -^ay-
Church, because they suppose the illimitable and impassible ?•«•**•
Father to be limitable withal and passible through His becoming?^3'
man: for such are they whom the Latins call the Patropassians,
and we Sabellians f. For we acknowledge that the Father who
sent, remained in the peculiar state of His unchangeable
Godhead, and that Christ who was sent fulfilled the economy of
the incarnation.
(7-) And at the same time those who irreverently say that
the Son was generated, not by choice or will, thus encompassing
God with a necessity which excludes choice and purpose, so that
He begat the Son unwillingly, we account as most irreligious
and alien to the Church ; in that they have dared to define such
things concerning God, beside the common notions concerning
Him, nay, beside the purport of divinely inspired Scripture.
For we, knowing that God is absolute and sovereign over Him-
self, have a religious judgment that He generated the Son volun-
tarily and freely ; yet, as wre have a reverent belief in the Son's
words concerning Himself, The. Lord hath created Me a beginning Prov. 8.
22.
of Angels. Leg. Alleg. iii. 62 On a son is to a father. And if any one
the other hand, Theophilus on the text, says that He is like in a certain respect,
*' The voice of the Lord God walking in Ka.ro. <r<, as is written afore, he is
the garden," speaks of the "Word, " as- alien from the Catholic Church, as not
suming the person, *-^Wrov, of the confessing the likeness according to
Father," and " in the person of God." divine Scripture." Epiph. Hser. 73. 22.
ad Autol. ii. 22. the word not then S. Cyril of Jerusalem uses the Ka.ro.
having its theological sense. wavra or Iv KKSTIV opoiov, Catech. iv. 7.
e t/tatov Ka.ro. •xu.vra.. Here again we xi. 4 and 18. and Athan. Orat. i. §.
have a strong Semi-arian or almost 21. and ii. §. 18 and 22. Damasc. F. O.
Catholic formula introduced by the bye, i. 8. p. 135.
marking the presence of what may be f Eusebius also, Eccles. Theol. i. 20.
called the new Semi-arian school. Of says that Sabellius held the Patropas-
course it admitted of evasion, but in sian doctrine. Epiph. however, Haer. p.
its fulness it included "substance." 398. denies it, and imputes the doctrine to
At Sirmium Constantius inserted it in Noetus. Sabellius's doctrine will come
the Confession which occurs supra, vid. before us infr. Orat. iv. ; meanwhile it
p. 84, note a. On this occasion Basil should be noticed, that in the reason
subscribed in this form. " I, Basil, which theConfession alleges against that
Bishop of Ancyra, believe and assent heretical doctrine it is almost implied
to what is aforewritten, confessing that that the divine nature of the Son suffered
the Son is like the Father in all things ; on the Cross. They would naturally fall
and by ' in all things,' not only that into this notion directly theygave up their
He is like in will, but in subsistence, belief in our Lord's absolute divinity.
and existence, and being; as divine It would as naturally follow to hold that
Scripture teaches, spirit from spirit, our Lord had no human soul, but that
life from life, light from light, God His pre-existent nature stood in the
from God, true Son from true, Wisdom place of it:— also that His Mediator-
fromtheWise God and Father ; and once ship was no peculiarity of His Incarna-
for all, like the Father in all things, as tion. vid. p. 107, note e. p. 119, note o.
116 The Macrostich Creed, sent into lialy,
COUNC.O/* His ways for His works, we do not understand Him to be
AUIM. generated, like the creatures or works which through Him came
r>AN° to be. For it is irreligious and alien to the ecclesiastical faith,
>F'Lt'u'to compare the Creator with handiworks created by Him, and to
think that He has the same manner of generation with the rest.
For divine Scripture teaches us really and truly that the Only-
begotten Son was generated sole and solely g.
Yet h, in saying that the Son is in Himself, and both lives and exists
like the Father, we do not on that account separate Him from
the Father, imagining place and interval between their union in
the way of bodies. For we believe that they are united with
i de each other without mediator or distance1, and that they exist in-
Decr. separable; all the Father embosoming the Son, and all the Son
$.8.supr. hanging and adhering to the Father, and alone resting on the
P' * * Father's breast continually2. Believing then in the All-perfect
-pdeecr Trinity, the most Holy, that is, in the Father, and the Son, and the
§. 26. Holy Ghost, and calling the Father God, and the Son God, yet
supr. we confess in them, not two Gods, but one dignity of Godhead, and
p. 46. one exact harmony of dominion, the only Father being Head over
the whole universe wholly, and over the Son Himself, and the
Son subordinated to the Father; but, excepting Him, ruling
over all things after Him which through Himself have come to
be, and granting the grace of the Holy Ghost unsparingly to the
holy at the Father's will. For that such is the account of
3 p. 45, the Divine Monarchy3 towards Christ, the sacred oracles have
note h. delivered to us.
Thus much, in addition to the faith before published in
epitome, we have been compelled to draw forth at length, not in
any officious display, but to clear away all unjust suspicion con-
cerning our opinions, among those who are ignorant of what we
really hold : and that all in the West may know, both the
audacity of the slanders of the heterodox, and as to the Orientals,
« The Confession does not here com- history. The paragraph is in its very
ment on the clause against our Lord's form an interpolation or appendix, while
being Ingenerate, having already no- its doctrine bears distinctive characters
ticed it under paragraph (2). It will be of something higher than the old Semi-
remarked that it still insists upon the un- arianism. The characteristic of that, as
scripturalness of the Catholic positions, of other shapes of the heresy, was the ab-
The main subject of this paragraph the solute separation which it put between
St^wi ym»j&v, which forms great part the Father and the Son. They considered
of the Ariari question and controversy, Them as two alrim, O/U,OIKI like, but not as
is reserved for Orat. iii. 59, &c. in which opacvnor, their very explanation of the
Athanasius formally treats of it. He word riteits was "independent" and "dis-
trea.ts of the text Prov. viii. 22. through- tinct." Language then, such as that inthe
out Orat. ii. The doctrine of the text, was the nearest assignable approach
f&owytvls has already partially come to the reception of the ofteovtriof ; all that
before us in de Deer. §.7— 9. p. 12, &c. was wanting was the doctrine of the
M«'»wj, not as the creatures, vid. p. 62, fri£«g«g««vf, of which infr. Orat. iii.
n°te f. It is observable that a hint is
h This last paragraph is the most thrown out by Athanasius about " sug-
curious of the instances of the presence of gestions" from without, a sentence or
this new and nameless influence, which two afterwards. It is observable too
seems at this time to have been spring- that in the next paragraph the preceding
ing up among the Eusebians, and shew- doctrine is pointedly said to be that of
ed itself by acts before it has a place in " the Orientals."
being thejifth of the Eusebians, Semi-arimns. 117
their ecclesiastical judgment in the Lord, to which the divinely CHAP.
inspired Scriptures bear witness without violence, where men are II.
not perverse.
14. However they did not stand even to this ; for again at §• 27.
Sirmium1 they met together11 against Photinus1, and there com-
posed a faith again, not drawn out into such length, not so full
in words ; but subtracting the greater part and adding in its
place, as if they had listened to the suggestions of others,
they wrote as follows : —
i Sirmimn was a city of lower Pan-
nonia, not far from the Danube, and it
was the great bulwark of the Illyrian
provinces of the Empire. There Vetra-
nio assumed the purple; and there Con-
stantius was born. The frontier war
caused it to be from time to time
the Imperial residence. We hear of
Constantius at Sirmium in the sum-
mer of 357. Ammian. xvi. 10. He
also passed there the ensuing winter,
ibid. xvii. 12. In October, 358, after
the Sarmatian war, he entered Sirmium
in triumph, and passed the winter there,
xvii. 13 fin. and with a short absence
in the spring, remained there till the
end of May, 359. vid. p. 84, note a.
k In the dates here fixed for the Con-
fessions of Sirmium, Petavius has been
followed, who has thrown more light on
the subject than any one else. In 351,
the Semi-arian party was still stronger
than in 345. The leading person in
this Council was Basil of Ancyra, who
is generally considered their head. Ba-
sil held a disputation with Photinus. Sil-
vanus too of Tarsus now appears for the
first time; while, according to Socrates,
Mark of Arethusa, who was more con-
nected with the Eusebians than any
other of his party, drew up the Ana-
themas ; the Confession used was the
same as that sent to Constant, of the
Council of Philippopolis, and the Ma-
crostich.
J There had been no important Ori-
ental Council held since that of the
Dedication ten years before, till this of
Sirmium ; unless indeed that of Philip-
popolis requires to be mentioned, which
was a secession from the Council of
Sardica. S. Hilary treats its creed as a
Catholic composition, de Syn. 39 — 63.
Philastrius and Vigilius call the Coun-
cil a meeting of u holy bishops" and
a " Catholic Council." de Hser. 65. in
Eutych. v. init. What gave a character
and weight to this Council, which be-
longed to no other Eusebian meeting,
was, that it met to set right a real evil,
and was not a mere pretence with Arian
objects. Photinus had now been 8 or
9 years in the open avowal of his heresy,
yet in possession of his see. Nothing is
more instructive in the whole of this
eventful history than the complication
of hopefulness and deterioration in the
Oriental party, and the apparent advance
yet decline of the truth. Principles,
good and bad, were developing on both
sides with energy. The fall of Hosius
and Liberius, and the dreadful event of
Ariminum, are close before the ruin of
the Eusebian power. As to the Bishops
present at this Sirmian Council, we
have them described in Sulpitius ; '* Part
of the Bishops followed Arius, and
welcomed the desired condemnation of
A thanasius ; part, brought together by
fear and faction, yielded to a party
spirit ; a few, to whom faith was dear
and truth precious, rejected the unjust
judgment." Hist. ii. 52.; he instances
Paulinus of Treves, whose resistance,
however, took place at Milan some
years later. Sozomen gives us a simi-
lar account, speaking of a date a few
years before the Sirmian Council.
" The East," he says, " in spite of its
being in faction after the Antiochene
Council" of the Dedication, uand thence-
forth openly dissenting from the Nicene
faith, in reality, I think, concurred in
the sentiment of the majority, and with
them confessed the Son to be of the
Father's substance ; but from conten-
tiousness certain of them fought against
the term ' One in substance ;' some, as
I conjecture, having originally objected
to the word. ..others from habit...
others, aware that the resistance was
unsuitable, leaned to this side or that
to gratify parties ; and many thought it
weak to waste themselves in such
strife of words, and peaceably held to
the Nicene decision." Hist. iii. 13.
118 Tlwjirst Creed of Sirmiuin, ayainxt
COUNC. We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and
AKIM. Maker of all things, from whom the whole family in heaven and
AM earlh is named.
ELELK ^n(j jn j-jjg Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus the Christ,
vi.Con- wn() before an the ages was begotten from the Father, God from
or 1st ' God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in
Sirmi- heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible, being Word and
an.A.D. Wisdom and True Light and Life, who in the last days was made
:5f]- o man for us, and was born of the Holy Virgin, and crucified and
l? ' °' dead and buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, and
was taken up into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of
the Father, and is coming at the end of the world, to judge
quick and dead, and to render to every one according to his
works ; whose Kingdom being unceasing endures unto the infinite
ages ; for He shall sit on the right hand of the Father, not
only in this world, but also in that which is to come.
And in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete ; which, having
promised to the Apostles, to send forth after His ascension into
heaven, to teach and to remind them of all things, He did send ;
through whom also are sanctified the souls of those wrho sincerely
believe in Him.
(1.) But those who say that the Son was from nothing or from
• vid. other subsistence l and not from God, and that there was time
note on or age when He was not, the Holy and Catholic Church regards
^IC- as aliens.
p.D66. (20 -Again we say, Whosoever says that the Father and the Son
are two Gods, be he anathema"1.
(3.) And whosoever, saying that Christ is God, before ages Son
of God, does not confess that He subserved the Father for the
framing of the universe, be he anathema n.
m This Anathema which has occurred tics is very much the same on this
in substance in the Macrostich, and point of the Son's ministration, with
again infra, Anath. 18 and 23. is a dis- this essential difference of sense, that
claimer on the part of the Eusebian Catholic writers mean a ministration
party of the charge brought against them internal to the divine substance and an
with reason by the Catholics, of their in instrument connatural with the Father,
fact holding a supreme and a secondary and Arius meant an external and
God. In the Macrostich it is disclaimed created medium of operation, vid. p. 12.
upon a simple Arian basis. The Semi- note z. Thus S. Clement calls our Lord
arians were more open to this imputa- " the All-harmonious Instrument (Ra-
tion ; Eusebius, as we have seen above, »«») of God." Protrept. p. 6. Eusebius
distinctly calling our Lord a second " an animated and living instrument
and another God. vid. p. 63, note g. (ogy«»«v fyt^w^av,) nay, rather divine
It will be observed that this Anathema and vivific of every substance and na-
contradicts the one which immediately ture." Demonstr. iv. 4. S. Basil, on
follows, and the llth, in which Christ the other hand, insists that the Arians
is called God; except, on the one reduced our Lord to " an inanimate in-
hand, the Father and Son are One God, strument." Spyutov ci4>u%o9, though they
which was the Catholic doctrine, or, called Him ur^yiv rtXneravot, most
i the other, the Son is God in name perfect minister or under- worker, adv.
nily, which was the pure Arian or Ano- F.unom. ii. 21. Elsewhere he says,
mcea"' "the nature of a cause is one, and the
language of Catholics and here- nature of an instrument, 0gy«v«i;, an-
being the sixth of the Eu&cbians, Semi-arian. Ill)
(4.) Whosoever presumes to say that the Ingenerate, or a part of CHAP.
Him ! was born of Mary, be he anathema. II.
(5.) Whosoever says that according to foreknowledge2 the Son is ] p. 114,
before Mary and not that, generated from the Father before ages, note c-
He was with God, and that through Him all things were gene- P* >
rated, be he anathema.
(6.) Whosoever shall pretend that the substance of God was
enlarged or contracted 3, be he anathema. f Orat.
(7.) Whosoever shall say that the substance of God being enlarged iv* §• 13<
made the Son, or shall name the enlargement of His substance
the Son, be he anathema.
(8.) Whosoever calls the Son of God the mental or pronounced
Word4, be he anathema. 4 p. 113,
(9.) Whosoever says that the Son from Mary is man only, be note z-
he anathema.
(10.) Whosoever, speaking of Him who is from Mary God
and man, thereby means God the Ingenerate5, be he anathema. 5 p. 112,
(11.) Whosoever shall explain / am the First and I am the Last, n- (2-)
and besides Me there is no God, which is said for the denial of Is*44'6*
idols and of gods that are not, to the denial of the Only-begotten,
before ages God, as Jews do, be he anathema.
(12.) Whosoever, because it is said The Word was made flesh, shall John 1,
consider that the Word was changed into flesh, or shall say that 14>
He underwent an alteration and took flesh, be he anathema0.
other ;. . . foreign then in nature is the Son
from the Father, since such is an in-
stmment from a workman." de Sp. S.
n. 6 fin. vid. also n. 4 fin. and n. 20.
Afterwards he speaks of our Lord as
ii not intrusted with the ministry of each
work by particular injunctions in detail,
for this were ministration," XtiTov£yixov,
but as being " full of the Father s ex-
cellences," and " fulfilling not an in-
strumental, <j£y«wx»jv, and servile min-
istration,but accomplishing the Father's
will like a Creator, ^n^ov^yiKus • ibid,
n. 19. And so S. Gregory, " The Fa-
ther signifies, the Word accomplishes,
not servilely, nor ignorantly, but with
knowledge and sovereignty, and, to speak
more suitably, in the Father's way,
vctr£ix£;. Orat. 30. 11. And S. Cyril,
" There is nothing abject in the Son,
as in a minister, uirou^yu, as they say ;
for the God and Father iujoins not, \vi-
raTTs/, on His Word, ' Make man,' but
as one with Him, by nature, and in-
separably existing in Him us a co-
operator," £c. in Joann. p. 48. Ex-
planations such as these secure for the
Catholic writers some freedom in their
modes of speaking, e. g. we have seen,
supr. p. 15. note d. that Athan. speaks
of the Son, as " enjoined and min-
istering," -rgofrairreftivot, *«< faMgymi,
Orat. ii. §. 22. Thus S. Irenaeus speaks
of the Father being well-pleased and
commanding, xsAsyovro?, and the Son
doing and framing. Hser. iv. 75. S.
Basil too, in the same treatise in which
are some of the foregoing protests,
speaks of " the Lord ordering, vgoirruf-
<ravT«, and the Word framing." de Sp. S.
n. 38. S. Cyril of Jerusalem, of" Him
who bids, !»TSA.XIT«/, bidding to one who
is present wiih Him," Cat. xi. 16. vid.
also v<xr.%t<ruv <rv\ jSovXjJ, Justin. Tryph.
126. and V7eov%yov, Theoph. ad Autol.
ii. lQ.i%uvtigi'ri5v0ihwfjt.uri) Clem. Strom,
vii. p. 832.
0 The 12th and 13th Anathemas are
intended to meet the charge which is al-
luded to pp. 1.15, 123, notes f andu, that
Arianism involved the doctrine that our
Lord's divine nature suffered. Atha-
nasius brings this accusation against
them distinctly in his work against
Apollinaris, " Idle then is the fiction
of the Arians, who suppose that the
Saviour took flesh only, irreligiously
imputing the notion of suffering to the
impassible godhead." contr. Apollin. i.
15. vid. also Ambros. de Fide, iii. 38.
Salig in his de Eutychianismo ant.
Eutychen takes notice of none of the
passages in the text.
COUNC.
ARIM.
AND
SELEU.
Gen. 1,
26.
«p. 114,
ref. 2.
Gen. 19,
24.
100 The first Creed of Sirmiiim, against Photius,
(13.) Whosoever, as hearing the Only-begotten Son of God was
crucified, shall say that His Godhead underwent corruption,
or passion, or alteration, or diminution, or destruction, be he
anathema.
(14.) Whosoever shall say that Let Us make man » was not said
by the Father to the Son, but by God to Himself, be he ana-
thema v.
(15.) Whosoever shall say that Abraham saw, not the Son, but
the Ingenerate God or part of Him, be he anathema 4.
(16.) Whosoever shall say that with Jacob, not the Son as man,
but the Ingenerate God or part of Him, did wrestle, be he
anathema r.
(1 7«) Whosoever shall explain, The Lord ralnedjirefrom the Lord
not of the Father and the Son, and says that He rained from
P This Anathema is directed against
the Sabellians, especially Marcellus, who
held the very opinion which it denounces,
that the Almighty spate with Himself.
Euseb. Eccles. Theol. ii. 15. The Jews
said that Almighty God spoke to the
Angels. Basil. Hexaem. fin. Others
that the plural was used as authorities
on earth use it in way of dignity.
Theod. in Gen. 19. As to the Catholic
Fathers, as is well known, they inter-
preted the text in the sense here given.
It is scarcely necessary to refer to in-
stances ; Petavius,however, cites the fol-
lowing. First those in which the Eter-
nal Father is considered to speak to the
Son. Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 18. Nova-
tian, de Trin. 26. Tertullian, de Cam.
Christ. 5. Synod. Antioch. contr. Paul,
ap. Routh. Reliqu. t. 2. p. 468. Basil.
Hexaem. fin. Cyr. Hieros. Cat. x. 6.
Cyril. Alex. Dial. iv. p. 516. Athan.
contr. Gentes, 46. Orat. iii. §. 29. fin.
Chrysost. in Genes. Horn. viii. 3. Hilar.
iv. 17. v. 8. Ambros. Hexaera. vi. 7.
Augustin.ad Maxim, ii. 26. n. 2. Next
those in which Son and Spirit are con-
sidered as addressed. Theoph. ad Autol.
ii. 18. Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eunom. v.
p. 315. Pseudo-Chrysost. de Trin. t. i.
p. 832. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 12. Theodor.
in Genes. 19. Hser. v. 3. and 9. But
even here, where the Arians agree with
Catholics, they differ in this remarkable
respect, that in this and the following
Canons they place certain interpreta-
tions of Scripture under the sanction of
an anathema, shewing how far less
free the system of heretics is than that
of the Church.
i This again, in spite of the wording,
which is directed against the Catholic
doctrine, and of an heretical implica-
tion^ a Catholic interpretation.vid. (be-
sides Philo de Somniis. i. 12.) Justin.
Tryph. 56. and 126. Iren. Ha>r. iv. 10.
n. 1. Tertull. de earn. Christ. 6. adv.
Marc. iii. 9. adv. Prax. 16. Novat. de
Trin. 18. Origen. in Gen. Horn. iv. 5.
Cyprian, adv. Jud. ii. 5. Antioch. Syn.
contr. Paul, apud Routh. Rell. t. 2. p.
469. Athan. Orat. ii. 13. Epiph. Ancor.
29 and 39. Hser. 71. 5. Chrysost. in
Gen. Horn. 41.7. These references are
principally from Petavius ; also from
Dorscheus, who has written an elabo-
rate commentary on this Council. The
implication alluded to above is, that
the Son is of a visible substance, and
thus is naturally the manifestation of
the Invisible God. Petavius maintains,
and Bull denies, (Defens. F. D. iv. 3.)
that the doctrine is found in Justin,
Origen, &c. The Catholic doctrine is
that the Son has condescended to be-
come visible by means of material ap-
pearances. Augustine seems to have
been the first who changed the mode of
viewing the texts in question, and con-
sidered the divine appearance, not God
the Son, but a created Angel, vid. de
Trin. ii. passim. Jansenius considers
that he did so from a suggestion of St.
Ambrose, that the hitherto received
view had been the origo hseresis Ari-
anse, vid. his Augustinus, lib. prooem.
c. 12. t. 2. p. 12. The two views are not
inconsistent with each other. It is re-
markable that in this and the next ana-
thema for " partem ejus" in Hilary,
Petavius should propose to read " pa-
trem" against the original text in Athan.
f*.i£»s avrev, and the obvious explanation
of it by the phrase ftigef ofAoovviov, which
was not unfrequently in the mouths of
Arian objectors, vid. supr. p. 97, note i.
r This and the following Canon are
Catholic in their main doctrine, and
might be illustrated, if necessary, as
the foregoing.
being the sixth of the Eusebians, Semi-arian. 121
Himself, be he anathema. For the Son Lord rained from the CHAP.
Father Lord. IL
(18.) Whosoever hearing that the Father is Lordandthe Son Lord
and the Father and Son Lord, for there is Lord from Lord, says
there are two Gods,, be he anathema. For we do not place the
Son in the Father's order, but as subordinate to the Father ; for
He did not descend upon Sodom without the Father's will1, nor1 p. 118,
did He rain from Himself, but from the Lord, that is, the Father note n-
authorizing it. Nor is He of Himself set down on the right
hand, but He hears the Father saying, Sit Thou on My right Ps. 110,
hand. * •
(19 ) Whosoever says that the Father and the Son and the Holy
Ghost are One Person, be he anathema.
(20.) Whosoever, speaking of the Holy Ghost as Paraclete, shall
speak of the Ingenerate God, be he anathema8.
(21.) Whosoever shall deny, what the Lord taught us, that the
Paraclete is other than the Son, for He hath said, And another Jolml4,
Paraclete shall the Father send to you, whom I will ask, be he 16>
anathema.
(22.) Whosoever shall say that the Holy Ghost is part of the
Father or of the Son 2, be he anathema. 3 p- 120,
(23.) Whosoever shall say that the Father and the Son and the"' (1Gl>
Holy Ghost be three Gods, be he anathema.
(24.) Whosoever shall say that the Son of God at the will of
God came to be, as one of the works, be he anathema.
(25.) Whosoever shall say that the Son was generated, the Father
not wishing it3, be he anathema. For not by compulsion, forced3 p.jis,
by physical necessity, did the Father, as He wished not, generate11' ('•)
the Son, but He at once willed, and, after generating Him from
Himself apart from time and passion, manifested Him.
(26.) Whosoever shall say that the Son isingenerate and unori-
ginate, as if speaking of two unoriginate and two ingenerate, and
making two G ods, be he anathema. For the Son is the Head, which
is the origin of all: and Godisthe Head, which is the origin of Christ4;4 p. 98,
for thus to one unoriginate origin of the universe do we religiously cir- fin-
refer all things through the Son. P- ^'
(27.) And in accurate delineation of the idea of Christianity we"'
say this again ; Whosoever shall not say that Christ is God, Son of
God, as being before ages, and having subserved the Father in
8 It was an expedient of the Mace- 6. But, as the Arians had first made
donians to deny that the Holy Spirit the alternative only between Ingenerate
was God because it was not usual to call and created, and Athan. de Deer. §. 28.
Him Ingenerate; and perhaps to their supr. p. 53, note g. shews that gene-
form of heresy which was always im- rate is a third idea really distinct
plied in Arianism, and which began to from one and the other, so S. Greg,
shew itself formally among the Semi- Naz. adds, procexsivc, Ixxopwrov, as
arians ten years later, this anathema an intermediate idea, Contrasted with
may be traced. They asked the Ca- Ingenerate, yet distinct from generate.
tholics whether the Holy Spirit was In- Orat. xxxi. 8. In other words, Ingene-
gencrate, generate, or created, for into rate means, not only not generate, but
these three they divided all things, vid. not from any origin, vid. August, de
Basil, in Sabell. et Ar. Horn. xxiv. Trin. xv. 26.
122 The second Creed of Sirmium, subscribed by Hosius,
COUNC. the framing of the Universe, but that from the timethathe was born
ARIM. Of Mary, from thence He was called Christ and .Son, and took an
SFLEU
* being God, be he anathema.
§. 28. 15. Casting aside the whole of this, as if they had discovered
something better, they propound another faith, and write at
Sinnium in Latin what is here translated into Greek*.
vii.Con- Whereas it has seemed good that there should be some dis-
fession, cussion concerning faith, all points have been carefully investi-
or 2nd gate(j anj discussed at Sinnium in the presence of Valens, and
anT.D. Ursacius, and Germanius, and the rest.
357. It is held for certain that there is one God, the Father
Almighty, as also is preached in all the world.
And His One Only -begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
generated from Him before the ages; and that we may not
John20, speak of two Gods, since the Lord Himself has said, / go to My
' ' , Father and your Father, and My God and your God. On this account
J^" He is God of all, as also the Apostle has taught: Is He God of the
Kom. 3, Jews only, is He not also of the Gentiles'? yea of the Gentiles also: since
29. there is one God who shall justify the circumcision from faith, and
the uncircumcifiion through faith ; and every thing else agrees, and
has no ambiguity.
But since many persons are disturbed by questions con-
cerning what is called in Latin " Substantia," but in Greek
" Usia," that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to " One
in Substance," or what is called, " Like in substance," there
ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them
in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in
divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are
above men's knowledge and above men's understanding; and
because no one can declare the Son's generation, as it is written,
Is. 53, 6. Who shall declare His generation? for it is plain that the Father
only knows how He generated the Son, and again the Son how
He has been generated by the Father. And to none can it be
a question that the Father is greater : for no one can doubt that
the Father is greater in honour and dignity and Godhead, and in
vi<l. the very name of Father, the Son Himself testifying, The Father
JohnlO,^,/ seni Me js greaier than L And no one is ignorant, that it
Johnl4 1S Catholic doctrine, that there are two Persons of Father and
28. ' Son, and that the Father is greater, and the Son subordinated1 to
1 iixoTt- the Father together with all things which the Father has subordi-
'
* The Creed which follows was not calls this a " blasphemia," and upon it
put forth by a Council, but at a meeting followed the Semi-arian Council by way
of a few Arian Bishops, and the author of protest at Ancyra. St. Hilary tells
was Potamius, Bishop of Lisbon. It is us that it was the Confession which
important as marking the open separa- Hosius was imprisoned and tortured
tion of the Eusebians or Acacians from into signing. Whether it is the one
the Semi-ariuns, and their adoption of which Pope Liberius signed is doubt-
Anomrean tenets. Hilary, who defends ful ; but he signed an Arian Confession
the Eusebian Councils up to this date, at this time.
beiuy the seventh of the Eusebians, Arian. 123
nated to Him, and that the Father has no origin, and is invisible, CHAP.
and immortal, and impassible; but that the Son has been generated IL
from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, and that His ' *«?«-
generation, as aforesaid, no one knows, but the Father only. And *««»•
that the Son Himself and our Lord and God, took flesh, that i»» JJ^
a body, that is, man, from Mary the Virgin, as the Angel heralded 3^5^
beforehand ; and as all the Scriptures teach, and especially the Orat. i.
Apostle Himself, the doctor of the Gentiles, Christ took man of M
Mary the Virgin, through which He suffered. And the whole
faith is summed up l, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever
be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, Go ye and baptize all Me Mat. 28,
nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy I'd.
Ghost. And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity; but
the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, sent forth through the Son, came
according to the promise, that He might teach and sanctify the
Apostles and all believers u.
16. After drawing up this, and then becoming dissatisfied, §. 29.
they composed the faith which to their shame they paraded
with " the Consulate." And, as is their wont, condemning this
also, they caused Martinian the notary to seize it from the
parties who had the copies of it x. And having got the Em-
peror Constantius to put forth an edict against it, they form
another dogma afresh, and with the addition of certain
expressions, according to their wont, they write thus in
Isauria.
We decline not to bring forward the authentic faith published at ix. Con-
fession,
atSeleu-
u It will be observed that this Con- Sardican Confession, (vid. above, pp. ciaA.D.
fession; 1. by denying u two Gods," 84, 85, note c,) and turns them into ^^'
and declaring that the One God is the another evidence of this additional
God of Christ, implies that our Lord is heresy involved in Arianism. " Im-
not God. 2. It says that the word " sub- passibilis Deus," says Phcebadius
stance," and its compounds, ought not " quia Deus Spiritus . . . non ergo
to be used as being unscriptural, mys- passibilis Dei Spiritus, licet in homine
terious, and leading to disturbance ; suo passus." Now the Sardican Con-
3. it holds that the Father is greater fession is thought ignorant, as well as
than the Son " in honour, dignity, and unauthoritative, (e. g. by Natalis Alex,
godhead ;" 4. that the Son is subordi- Srcc. 4. Diss. 29.) because it imputes
nate to the Father with all other to Vaiens and Ursacius the following
things; 5. that it is the Father's cha- belief, which he supposes to be Patripas-
racteristic to be invisible and impassi- sianism, but which exactly answers to
ble. On the last head, vid. supr. pp. 115. this aspect and representation of Arian -
1 19. notes f. o. The)' also say that our ism: on o \aya? XKI on rn yrvzufta. xti
Lord,hominem suscepisse per quern com- Ir-ruv^yi KU.} ler^uyvi KO.\ arifatsv xcti
jmsstts est, a word which Phoebadius civ'tinn. Theod. Hist. ii. b'. p. S4-J.
condemns in his remarks on this Con- x Some critics suppose that this
fession ; where, by the way, he uses transaction really belongs to the second
the word " spiritus" in the sense of instead of the third Coofesstoa of Sir-
Hilary and the Ante-Nicene Fathers, miuvn. Socrates connects it with the
in a connection which at once explains second. Hist. ii. 30.
the obscure words of the supposititious
124 Creed of Seleucia, ninth of the Eusebians, Homcean.
COUNC. the Dedication at Antioch y ; though certainly our fathers at that
ARIM. time met together for a particular subject under investigation.
SELEU ^ut 8*nce " ^ne *n su^stance" and " Like in substance1/' have
— ' troubled many persons in times past and up to this day, and since
fM°'tU~ rnoreover some are said recently to have devised the Son's " Un-
' 'biftun likeness2" to the Father, on their account we reject " One in sub-
stance" and " Like in substance," as alien to the Scriptures, but
" Unlike" we anathematize, and account all who profess it as
aliens from the Church. And we distinctly confess the " Like-
ness3" of the Son to the Father, according to the Apostle, who
Col. i, says of the Son, Who is the Image of the Invisible God.
15. And we confess and believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
And we believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, gene-
rated from Him impassibly before all the ages, God the Word,
God from God, Only-begotten, light, life, truth, wisdom, power,
through whom all things were made, in the heavens and on the
earth, whether visible or invisible. He, as we believe, at the end
of the world, for the abolishment of sin, took flesh of the Holy
Virgin, and was made man, and suffered for our sins, and rose
again, and was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of the Father, and is coming again in glory, to judge quick
and dead.
We believe also in the Holy Ghost, which our Saviour and
Lord named Paraclete, having promised to send Him to the
disciples after His own departure, as He did send; through
whom He sanctifieth all in the Church who believe, and are
baptized in the Name of Father and Son and Holy Ghost.
But those who preach aught beside this faith the Catholic
Church regards as aliens. And that to this faith that is equi-
valent which was published lately at Sirmium, under sanction of
his religiousness the Emperor, is plain to all who read it.
§. 30. 17. Having written thus in Isauria, they went up to Constan-
tinople z, and there, as if dissatisfied, they changed it, as is
y The Semi-arian majority in the Letter was finished, and contain later
Council had just before been confirming occurrences in the history of Arimi-
the Creed of the Dedication; hence this num, than were contemplated when
beginning, vid.supr. p. 89, note o. They he wrote supra, ch. i. n. 15. init. vid.
had first of all oft'ered to the Council the note h, in loc. In this place Athan.
third Sirmian, or " Confession with a distinctly says, that the following Con-
Date, "supr. §. 3. which their coadjutors fession, which the Acacians from Se-
ofiered at Ariminum, Soz. iv. 22. and at leucia adopted at Constantinople, was
the end of the present they profess that transmitted toAriminum,and there forced
the two are substantially the same, upon the assembled Fathers. This is
They seem to mean that they are both not inconsistent with what seems to he
Homoaan or Scriptural Creeds ; they the fact, that the Confession was drawn
differ in that the latter, as if to pro- up at a Council held at Nice in Thrace
pitiate the Semi-arian majority, adds near Adrianople in Oct. 359, whither
an anathema upon Anomrean as well the deputies from Ariminum had been
as on the Homoiision and Homreu- summoned by Constantius. vid. Hilar.
sion- Fragm. viii. 5. There the deputies
* These two sections seem to have signed it, and thence they took it back
been inserted by Athan. after his to Ariminum. In the beginning of the
Creed of Nice, tenth, signed at Ariminum, Homcean. 125
their wont, and with certain additions against using even CHAP.
" Subsistence" of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they trans '- —
mitted it to the Council at Arimiuum, and compelled even
the Bishops in those parts to subscribe it, and those who
contradicted them they got banished by Constantius. And
it runs thus : —
We believe in One God the Father Almighty, from whom are x. Con-
all things ; fession
And in the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten from Godat^ice
before all ages and before every origin, by whom all things were Q° n_
made, visible and invisible, and begotten as only-begotten, only stanti-
from the Father only % God from God, like to the Father that nople.
begat Him according to the Scriptures; whose generation no one A_-D-
knows, except the Father alone who begat Him. He as we3°9-360-
acknowledge, the Only-begotten Son of God, the Father sending
Him, came hither from the heavens, as it is written, for the un-
doing of sin and death, and was born of the Holy Ghost, of Mary
the Virgin according to the flesh, as it is written, and conversed
with the disciples, and having fulfilled the whole economy ac-
cording to the Father's will, was crucified and dead and buried
following year 360 it was confirmed by
a Council at Constantinople, after the
termination of that of Ariminum, and to
this confirmation Athanasius refers.
Socrates says, Hist. ii. 37 fin. that they
chose Nice in order to deceive the
ignorant with the notion that it was
Nicsea, and their creed the Nicene
faith, and the place is actually called
Nicaea, in the Acts of Ariminum pre-
served by Hilary, p. 1346. Such a
measure, whether or not adopted in mat-
ter of fact, might easily have had success,
considering the existing state of the
"West. We have seen, supr. p. 76, note
i, that S. Hilary had not heard the
Nicene Creed till he came into Asia
Minor, A. D. 356. and he says of his
Gallic and British brethren, " O blessed
ye in the Lord and glorious, who hold
the perfect and apostolic faith in the
profession of your conscience, and up
to this time know not creeds in writing.
For ye needed not the letter, who
abounded in the Spirit ; nor looked for
the hand's office for subscription, who
believed in the heart, and professed
with the mouth unto salvation. Nor
was it necessary for you as bishops to
read, what was put into your hands as
noophytes on your regeneration. But
necessity hath brought in the usage,
the creeds should be expounded and
subscriptions attached. For when what
our conscience holds is in danger, then
the letter is required ; nor surely is
there reason against writing what there
is health in confessing." de Syn. 63. It
should be added that at this Council
Ulphilas the Apostle of the Goths, who
had hitherto followed the Council of
Nicsea, conformed, and thus became
the means of spreading through his
countrymen the Creed of Ariminum.
3 ftovtt «* pheu. Though this is an
Homcean or Acacian, not an Anomrean
Creed, this phrase may be considered a
symptom of Anomcean influence ; petes
Trttqat., or wra, ft,otev being one special for-
mula adopted by Eunomius, explanatory
of ftoveytvtis , in accordance with the ori-
ginal Arian theory, mentioned de Deer.
§. 7. supra, p. 12. that the Son was the
one instrument of creation. Eunomius
said that He alone was created by the
Father alone ; all other things being
created by the Father, not alone, but
through Him whom alone He had first
created, vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 25. p. 239.
St. Basil observes that, if this be a true
sense of (lovoyitvit •, then no man is such,
e. g. Isaac, as being born of two, contr.
Eunom.ii. 21. Acacius has recourse to
Gnosticism, and illustrates the Arian
sense by the contrast of the <r£«/3*X»j of
the ^Eons, which as described supra,
p. 97, note h, was ix *o\\uv, ap. Epiph,
Har. 72. 7. p. 839.
!•><> Creed of Ant iocli,
CouNc.and descended to the parts below the earth; at whom hell itself
A HIM. shuddered : who also rose from the dead on the third day, and
SEI/E* ab°de with tne disciples, and, forty days being fulfilled, was
-" taken up into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the
Father, to come in the last day of the resurrection in the Father's
glory, that He may render to every man according to his works.
And in the Holy Ghost, whom the Only-begotten Son of God
Himself, Christ, our Lord and God, promised to send to the race
of man, as Paraclete, as it is written, " the Spirit of truth, which
He sent unto them when He had ascended into the heavens."
But the name of " Substance," which was set down by the
Fathers in simplicity, and, being unknown by the people, caused
offence, because the Scriptures contain it not, it has seemed good
to take away, and for the future to make no mention of it at all ;
since the divine Scriptures have made no mention of the Sub-
stance of Father and Son. For neither ought Subsistence to be
named concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But we say
that the Son is Like the Father, as the divine Scriptures say and
teach ; and all the heresies, both those which have been afore
condemned already, and whatever are of modern date, being
contrary to this published statement, be they anathema h.
§. 31. 18. However, they did not stand even to this; for coming
fession.n~ d°wn fr°m Constantinople to Antioch, they were dissatisfied
at Anti- that they had written at all that the Son was " Like the
A° 5. Father, as the Scriptures say;1' and putting their ideas upon
361 • paper, they began reverting to their first doctrines, and said
that " the Son is altogether unlike the Father," and that
the " Son is in no manner like the Father," and so much
did they change, as to admit those who spoke the Arian
doctrine nakedly and to deliver to them the Churches with
licence to bring forward the words of blasphemy with im-
punity0. Because then of the extreme shamelessness of
b Here as before, instead of speaking as well as the Greek original. This cir-
ofArianism, the Confession anathema- cumstance might be added, to those
tizeso//heresies. vid.supr.p. 108, note g. enumerated supra, p. 69, &c. to shew
It will be observed, that for " Like in all that in the Nicene formulary substance
things," which was contained in the and subsistence are synonymous.
Confession (third Sirmian) first sub- c Acacius, Eudoxius, and the rest,
mitted to the Ariminian Fathers, is after ratifying at Constantinople the
substituted simply " Like." Moreover, Creed framed at Nice and subscribed
they include hypostasis or subsistence, at Ariminum, appear next at Antioch
though a Scripture term, in the list of a year and a half later, when they
proscribed symbols, vid. also ad Afros, throw off the mask, and, avowing the
4. The object of suppressing urea-rains, AnomoDan Creed, " revert," as St. Atha-
seems to have been that,since the Creed, nasius says, " to their first doctrines,"
which was written in Latin, was to go to i. e. those with which Arius started.
Ariminum, the West might be forced to The Anomccan doctrine, it may be ob-
denjr the Latin version or equivalent of served, is directly opposed rather to the
«>oai;'<™»,unius substantial, or hypostasis, Homreusian than to the Homoiision, as
eleventh of the Eitscbiam, Anomaxin.
127
their blasphemy they were called by all Anomceans, having CHAP.
also the name of Exucontian d, and the heretical Constautius —
for the patron of their ungodliness, who persisting up to the
end in irreligion, and on the point of death, thought good
to be baptized6; not however by religious men, but by
Euzoius {, who for his Arianism had been deposed, not once,
but often, both when he was a deacon, and when he was in
the see of Antioch.
19. The forementioned parties then had proceeded thus far, §. 32.
when they were stopped and deposed. But well I know, not even
under these circumstances will they stop, as many as have now
dissembled8, but they will always be making parties against
indeed the very symbols shew; u unlike
in substance," being the contrary to
" like in substance." It doubtless
frightened the Semi-arians, and hast-
ened their return to the Catholic doc-
trine.
d From i| tlx, ovruv, (l out of no-
thing," one of the original Arian posi-
tions concerning the Son. Theodoret
says, that they were also called Exa-
cionitee, from the nature of their place
of meeting, Haer. iv. 3. and Du Cange
confirms it so far as to shew that there
was a place or quarter of Constantinople
called Exocionium or Exacionium.
e At this critical moment Constantius
died, when the cause of truth was only
not in the lowest state of degradation,
because a party was in authority and
vigour who could reduce it to a lower
still ; the Latins committed to an Anti-
Catholic Creed, the Pope a rene-
gade, Hosius fallen and dead, Atha-
nasius wandering in the deserts, Arians
in the sees of Christendom, and their
doctrine growing in blasphemy, and their
profession of it in boldness, every day.
TheEmperorhad come to the throne when
almost a boy, and at this time was but
44 years old. In the ordinary course of
things, he might have reigned till, hu-
manly speaking, orthodoxy was extinct.
This passage shews that Athanasius
did not insert these sections till two
years after the composition of the work
itself; for Constantius died A.D. 361.
f Euzoius, at this time Arian Bishop
of Antioch, was excommunicated with
Arius in Egypt and at Nicffia, and was
restored with him to the Church
at the Council of Jerusalem. He suc-
ceeded at Antioch S Meletius, who on
being placed in that see by the Arians
professed orthodoxy, and was forthwith
banished by them.
s vvixgivavro. hypocrites, is almost
a title of the Arians, (with an ap-
parent allusion to 1 Tim. iv. 2. vid.
Socr. i. p. 13. Athan. Orat. i. §. 8.)
and that in various senses. The first
meaning is that, being heretics, they
nevertheless used orthodox phrases and
statements to deceive and seduce Catho-
lics. Thus the term is used by Alex-
ander in the beginning of the contro-
versy, vid. Theod. Hist. i. 3. pp. 729.
746.* Again, it implies that they agreed
with Arius, but would not confess it ;
professed to be Catholics, but would
not anathematize him. vid. Athan. ad
Ep. ^Eg. 20. or alleged untruly the
Nicene Council as their ground of com-
plaint, infr. §. 39. Again, it is used of
the hollowness and pretence of their
ecclesiastical proceedings, with the Em-
peror at their head ; which were a sort
of make-belief of spiritual power, or
piece of acting, iptftMTtfyyiifut. Ep.
Encycl. 2 and 6. It also means general
insincerity, as if they were talking
about what they did not understand,
and did not realize what they said, and
were blindly implicating themselves in
evils of a fearful character. Thus
Athan. calls them TOV; rm 'Agtiet/ paviug
vvoxprcis' Orat. ii. §. 1. imt. and he
speaks of the evil spirit making them
his sport, <r<i7i vxox^ivo pivots Tt» f&a.vtctv
uvrov. ad Scrap, i. 1. And hence fur-
ther it is applied, as in this place, though
with severity, yet to those who were
near the truth, and who, though in
sin, would at length come to it or not,
according as the state of their hearts
was. He is here anticipating the re-
turn into the Church of those whom he
128 More Creeds in prospect till they submit to the Nicene.
COUNC. the truth, until they return to themselves and say, " Let us
AAKT>' rise and g° t° our fathers, and say unto them, We anathe-
SKLFU. matize the Arian heresy, and we acknowledge the Nicene
Council11:" for against this is their quarrel. Who then, with
ever so little understanding, will bear them any longer ? who,
on hearing in every Council some things taken away and
others added, but comprehends their treachery and secret
depravity against Christ ? who on seeing them embodying to
so great a length both their profession of faith, and their own
exculpation, but sees that they are giving sentence against
1 p. G, themselves1, and studiously writing much which may be
s °' likely by an officious display and an abundance of words
to seduce the simple and hide what they are in point of
heresy ? But as the heathen, as the Lord said, using vain
words in their prayers, are nothing profited; so they too, after
all their words were spent, were not able to extinguish the
judgment pronounced against the Arian heresy, but were
convicted and deposed instead ; and rightly ; for which of
their formularies is to be accepted by the hearer? or
with what confidence shall they be catechists to those who
come to them ? for if they all have one and the same mean-
2 p. no, ing, what is the need of many 2 ? But if need has arisen of so
many, it follows that each by itself is deficient, not complete ;
and they establish this point better than we can, by their in-
3 P. 81, novating on them all and re-making them3. And the number
of their Councils, and the difference of their statements is a
proof that those who were present at them, while at variance
with the Nicene, are yet too feeble to harm the Truth.
thus censures. In this sense, though monasteries of the deserts, in close con-
with far more severity in what he says, cealment, (unless we suppose he really
the writer of a Tract, imputed to had issued thence and was present at
Athan. against the Catholicising Semi- Seleucia,) this is a remarkable instance
arians of 363, entitles it u on the hypo- of accurate knowledge of the state of
crisy of Meletius and Eusebius of Sa- feeling in the heretical party, and of
mosata." It is remarkable that what foresight. From his apparent want of
Athan. here predicts was fulfilled to the knowledge of the Anomceans, and his
letter, even of the worst of these " by- unhesitatingly classing them with the
pocrites." For Acacius himself, who Arians, it would seem in a great
in 361 signed the Anomcean Confession measure to arise from intimate corn-
above recorded, was one of those very prehension of the doctrine itself in dis-
men who accepted the Homoiision with pute and of its bearings. There had
an explanation in 363. been at that time no parallel of a great
h Considering that Athanasius had aberration and its issue,
now been for several years among the
CHAP. III.
ON THE SYMBOLS " OF THE SUBSTANCE" AND " ONE IN
We must look at the sense not the wording1. The offence excited is at the
sense; meaning of the Symhols; the question of their not being in
Scripture. Those who hesitate only at the latter of the two, not to he
considered Arians. Reasons why " one in suhstance" better than " like
in suhstance," yet the latter maybe interpreted in a good sense. Explana-
tion of the rejection of " one in substance" by the Council which
condemned Samosatene; use of the word by Dionysius of Alexandria;
parallel variation in the use of Ingenerate; quotation from Ignatius and
another; reasons for using "one in substance;" objections to it;
examination of the word itself; further documents of the Council of
Ariminum.
1. BUT since they are thus minded both towards each other CHAP.
and towards those who preceded them, proceed we to ascer- —
tain from them what extravagance they have seen, or what '
they complain of in the received phrases, that they should thus
disobey their fathers, and contend against an Ecumenical
Council a ? " The phrases c of the substance' and c one in
substance,' " say they, " do not please us, for they are an
offence to some and a trouble to many V This then is what
a The subject before us, naturally nations as might clear the way for a
rises out of what has gone before, re-union of Christendom. The remainder
Athan. has traced out the course of of his work then is devoted to the consi-
Arianism to what seemed to be its deration of the " one in substance," (as
result, the resolution of it into a bet- contrasted with "like in substance,")
ter element or a worse,— the precipita- which had confessedly great difficulties
tion of what was really unbelieving in in it. vid. p. 147, note u.
it in the Anomoean form, and the b This is only stating what the
gradual purification of that Semi-arian- above Confessions have said again and
ism which prevailed in the Eastern again. The objections made to it were,
Sees. vid. p. 103, note t. The Ano- 1. that it was not in Scripture ; 2. that
moean creed was hopeless ; but with the it had been disowned by the Antio-
Semi-arians all that remained was the chene Council against Paul of Samo-
adjustment of phrases. They had to sata ; 3. that it was of a material
reconcile their minds to terms which nature, and belonged to the Mani-
the Church had taken from philosophy chees ; 4. that it was of a Sabellian
and adopted as her own. Accordingly, tendency ; 5. that it -implied that the
Athan. goes on to propose such expla- divine substance was distinct from God.
130 They who held the doctrine, would admit the terms ofNic&a .
COUNC. they allege in their writings ; but one may reasonably
AIJS1^1' answer them thus: If the very words were by themselves a
SELEU. cause of offence to them, it must have followed, not that
some only should have offended, and many troubled, but that
we also and all the rest should have been affected by them in
the same way ; but if on the contrary all men are well con-
tent with the words, and they who wrote them were no
ordinary persons but men who came together from the whole
world, and to these testify in addition the 400 Bishops and
more who have now met at Ariminum, does not this plainly
prove against those who accuse the Council, that the terms
are not in fault, but the perverseness of those who misinter-
pret them ? How many men read divine Scripture wrongly,
and as thus conceiving it, find fault with the Saints ? such
were the Jews formerly, who rejected the Lord, and the
1 vid- Manichees at present who blaspheme the Law ' ; yet are not
8. iv. 23. the Scriptures the cause to them, but their own evil humours.
If then ye can shew the terms to be actually unsound, do so
and let the proof proceed, and drop the pretence of offence
created, lest you come into the condition of the Pharisees
formerly, when, on pretending offence at the Lord's teaching,
Mat. 15, He said? Every plant, which My heavenly Father hath not
planted, shall he rooted up. By which He shewed that not
the words of the Father planted by Him were really an
offence to them, but that they misinterpreted good words
and offended themselves. And in like manner they who at
that time blamed the Epistles of the Apostle, impeached,
not Paul, but their own deficient learning and distorted
minds.
§• 34. 2. For answer what is much to the purpose, Who are they
whom you pretend are offended and troubled at these terms?
of those who are religious towards Christ not one ; on the
contrary they defend and maintain them. But if they are
Arians who thus feel, what wonder they should be distressed
at words which destroy their heresy ? for it is not the terms
which offend them, but the proscription of their irreligion
r P/ J2, which afflicts them 2. Therefore let us have no more
p. 36, murmuring against the Fathers, nor pretence of this kind;
P?138, or nextc y°u wiH t>e making complaints of the Lord's Cross,
ref. 4. c £gKi vi(jj Orat. i. §. 15. iv. §. 10. Scrap, ii. 1. nai^eg. de Deer. §. 15. init.
" Of God" if more than icords, means "of His Substance.''1 131
that it is to Jews an offence and to Gentiles foolishness, as CHAP.
said the Apostle d. But as the Cross is not faulty, for to us — ;— 1-
who believe it is Christ the power of God and the wisdom of 23. 24. '
God, though Jews rave, so neither are the terms of the
Fathers faulty, but profitable to those who rightly read, and
subversive of all irreligion, though the Arians so often burst 1 ' P- 29>
with rage as being condemned by them.
3. Since then the pretence that persons are offended does not
hold, tell us yourselves, why is it you are not pleased with
the phrase " of the substance," (this must first be enquired
about,) when you yourselves have written that the Son is
generated from the Father ? If when you name the Father,
or use the word " God," you do not signify substance, or
understand Him according to substance, who is that He is,
but signify something else about Him2, not to say inferior,2?. 38,
then you should not have written that the Son was from the no
Father, but from what is about Him or in Him6; and so,
shrinking from saying that God is truly Father, and making
Him compound who is simple, in a material way, you will
be authors of a new blasphemy. And, with such ideas, do
you of necessity consider the Word and the title " Son," not
as a substance but as a name3 only; and in consequence the3P- 4l>
views ye have ye hold as far as names only, and your p. 114',
statements are not positive points of faith, but negative note b-
opinions.
4. But this is more like the crime of the Sadducees, and §.35.
of those among the Greeks who had the name of Atheists.
It follows that you deny that creation too is the handywork
of God Himself that is ; at least, if " Father" and " God" do
d " The Apostle" is a common title called the Apostle. Orat. i. 47.
of St. Paul in antiquity. E. g. " By e Vid. Orat. i. $. 15. supra, de Deer,
partaking of the Son Himself, we are p. 38, note z. Thus Eusebius calls our
said to partake of God, and this is that Lord " the light throughout the uni-
which Peter has said, ' that ye might verse, moving round (cipQi) the Father."
be partakers of the divine nature,' as de Laud. Const, p. 501. It was a
says also the Apostle, " Know ye not Platonic idea, which he gained from
that ye are the temple of God,' &c." Plotinus; whom he quotes speaking of
Orat. i. §. 16. " "When ' the Apostle his second Principle as " radiance
is mentioned,' says S. Augustine, if it around, from Him indeed, but from one
is not specified which, Paul only is un- who remains what He was ; as the
derstood, because he is more celebrated sun's bright light circling around it,
from the number of his Epistles, and (wj^tav,) ever generated from it, which
laboured more abundantly than all the nevertheless remains." Evang. Prop,
rest." ad Bonifac. iii. 3. St. Peter is xi. 17. vid. above, p. 51, note b.
K 2
132 If "of God" not "of Substance," Christ a creature.
CouNc.not signify the very substance of Him that is, but something
AND ' else, which you imagine : which is irreligious, and most
SELEU. shocking even to think of. But if, when we hear it said, /
^4X- 3j am that I am, and In the beginning God created the heaven
Gen. i, and the earth, and Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one
Deut. 6 Lord, and Thus saith the Lord Almighty, we understand
nothing else than the very simple, and blessed, and incom-
prehensible substance itself of Him that is, (for though we
be unable to master that He is, yet hearing " Father," and
"God," and "Almighty," we understand nothing else to be
1 p. 34, meant than the very substance of Him that is f ;) and if ye
too have said, that the Son is from God, it follows that you
have said that He is from the "substance" of the Father.
And since the Scriptures precede you which say, that the
Lord is Son of the Father, and the Father Himself precedes
Mat. 3, them, who says, This is My beloved Son, and a son is no
other than the offspring from his father, is it not evident
that the Fathers have suitably said that the Son is from the
Father's substance ? considering that it is all one to say in an
orthodox sense " from God," and to say " from the substance."
For all the creatures, though they be said to be generated
from God, yet are not from God as the Son is; for they are
Gen. 1,1. not offsprings in their nature, but works. Thus, it is said, in
the beginning God, not " generated," but made the heaven and
the earth, and all that is in them. And not, " who generates,"
Ps. 104, but who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a
iCoY.s,flame °f ftre- And though the Apostle has said, One God,
from whom all things, yet he says not this, as reckoning the
Son with other things ; but, whereas some of the Greeks con-
2 de sidera that the creation was held together by chance, and from
p 33 J the combination of atoms3, and spontaneously from elements
36E leu °^ s*m^ar structure 4, and has no cause ; and others consider
ms. that it came from a cause, but not through the Word ; and
gtrnaasXa~each heretic has imagined things at his will, and tells his
fables about the creation ; on this account the Apostle was
obliged to introduce from God, that he might thereby certify
the Maker, and shew that the universe was framed at His
i Cor 8 W*^< ^nd accordingly he straightway proceeds : And one
6. ' Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things, by way of
pP54fin.'excepting the Son from that "allV (for what is called God's
Objection thai the Nicene Symbols are unscript-ural. 133
work, is all done through the Son ; and it is not possible CHAP.
that the things framed should have one generation with their '
Framer,) and by way of teaching that the phrase of God,
which occurs in the passage, has a different sense in the
case of the works, from what it bears when used of the
Son ; for He is offspring, and they are works : and therefore
He, the Son, is the proper offspring of His substance, but
they are the handy work of His will.
5. The Council, then, comprehending this1, and aware of§. 36.
the different senses of the same word, that none should sup- p^r
pose, that the Son was said to be from God like the creation, §• 19-
wrote with greater explicitness, that the Son was " from the p* ""
substance." For this betokens the true genuineness of the Son
towards the Father; whereas, in its being said simply "from
God," only the Creator's will concerning the framing of all
is signified. If then they too had this meaning, when they
wrote that the Word was " from the Father," they had no-
thing to complain of in the Council 2 ; but if they meant " of2 p. iso,
God," in the instance of the Son, as it" is used of the crea- ref* 2*
tion, then as understanding it of the creation, they should
not name the Son, or they will be manifestly mingling blas-
phemy with religiousness; but either they have to cease
reckoning the Lord with the creatures, or at least to make
statements not unworthy, and not unbecoming of the Son.
For if He is a Son, He is not a creature ; but if a creature,
then not a Son. Since these are their views, perhaps they
will be denying the Holy Laver also, because it is adminis-
tered into Father and into Son ; and not into Creator and
Creature, as they account it.
6. " But," they say, " all this is not written : and we reject
these words as un scriptural." But this, again, is an unblush-
ing excuse in their mouths. For if they think every thing
must be rejected which is not written, wherefore, when the
Arian party invent such a heap of phrases, not from Scrip-
ture3, " Out of nothing," and " the Son was not before His gene- 3 p- 31,
ration," and "Once He was not," and "He is alterable," nc
and " the Father is ineffable and invisible to the Son," and
"the Son knows not even His own substance;" and all that
Arius has vomited in his light and irreligious Thalia, why
do not they speak against these, but rather take their part;
134 Arian inconsistency in refusing theological terms.
COUNC. and on that account contend with their own Fathers ? And,
AARN!^' in what Scripture did they on their part find " In generate,"
SELEU. and the name of " substance," and " there are three subsist-
ences," and " Christ is not very God," and " He is one of the
hundred sheep," and " God's Wisdom is ingenerate and in-
originate, but the created powers are many, of which Christ is
1 «upr. one1 ?" Or how, when in the so-called Dedication, the party of
•p. 108 Acacius and Eusebius used expressions not in Scripture2, and
note b. said that " the First-born of the creation" was " the unvarying
Image of the divine substance, and power, and will of God,"
do they complain of the Fathers, for making mention of un-
scriptural expressions, and especially of substance ? For they
ought either to complain of themselves, or to find no fault
with the Fathers.
§. 37. 7. Now, if certain others made excuses of the expressions of
the Council, it might perhaps have been set down, either to
ignorance or to reverence. There is no question, for instance,
about George of Cappadociaf, who was expelled from Alex-
andria ; a man, without character in years past, nor a Chris-
tian in any respect ; but only pretending to the name to suit
i Tim. the times, and thinking religion to be a means of gain. And
therefore reason is there, none should complain of his making
mistakes about the faith, considering he knows neither what
he says, nor whereof he affirms ; but, according to the text,
Tid. goeth after all, as a bird. But when Acacius, and Eudoxius,
22. 23. ' and Patrophilus say this, do not they deserve the strongest
reprobation? for while they write what is unscriptural
Naz.
was
Epiphania of Cilicia, at a fuller's mill, he tried to persuade Constantius, that as
He was appointed pork-contractor to the successor of Alexander its founder
the army, as mentioned above, $. 12. he was proprietor of the soil and had a
and being detected in defrauding the claim upon the houses built on it. Am-
government, he fled to Egypt. Naz. inian. xxii. 11. Epiphanius tells us,
Orat. 21. 16. How he be'came ac- Ha3r. 76. 1. that he made a monopoly of
quainted with the Eusebian party does the nitre of Egypt, farmed the beds of
not appear. Sozomen tells us that he re- papyrus, and the salt lakes, and even
commended himself to the see of Alex- contrived a profit from the undertakers,
andria, by his zeal for Arianism and his His atrocious cruelties to the Catholics
ro fyetfrfyiev ; and Gregory calls him the are well known. Yet he seems to have
hand of the heresy as Acacius (?) was the collected a choice library of philosophers
tongue. Orat. 21. 21. He made himself and poets and Christian writers, which
so obnoxious to the Alexandrians, that Julian seized on ; Pitha>us in loc. Am-
in the reign of Julian he was torn to mian. also Gibbon, ch. 23.
Likeness in Substance the only true likeness. 135
themselves, and have accepted many times, the term " sub- CHAP.
stance" as suitable, especially on the ground of the letter of —
Eusebius1, they now blame their predecessors for using terms ^P-62
of the same kind. Nay, though they say themselves, that the
Son is "God from God," and "Living Word," "Unvarying
Image of the Father's substance ;" they accuse the Nicene
Bishops of saying, that He who was begotten is " of the sub-
stance" of Him who begat Him, and "One in substance" with
Him. But what marvel the conflict with their predecessors and
their own Fathers, when they are inconsistent to themselves,
and fall foul of each other ? For after publishing, in the so-
called Dedication at Antioch, that the Son is unvarying Image
of the Father's substance, and swearing that so they held and
anathematizing those who held otherwise, nay, in Isauria, writ-
ing down, " We do not decline the authentic faith published
in the Dedication at Antioch2," where the term "sub-2«upr.
stance" was introduced, as if forgetting all this, shortly after,
in the same Isauria, they put into writing the very contrary,
saying, We reject the words " one in substance," and " like in
substance," as alien to the Scriptures, and demolish the term
" substance," as not contained therein3. ^ Sg]ir
8. Can we then any more account such men Christians ? or §. 38.
what sort of faith have they who stand neither to word nor
writing, but alter and change every thing according to the
times ? For if, O Acacius and Eudoxius, you " do not
decline the faith published at the Dedication," and in it is
written that the Son is "Unvarying Image of God's substance,"
why is it ye write in Isauria, " we reject the Like in sub-
stance ?" for if the Son is not like the Father according to
substance, how is He " unvarying image of the substance ?"
But if you are dissatisfied at having written " Unvarying
Image of the substance," how is it that ye " anathematize
those who say that the Son is Unlike ?" for if He be not ac-
cording to substance like, He is altogether unlike : and the
Unlike cannot be an Image. And if so, then it does not
hold that lie that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Fa(he
there being then the greatest difference possible between
Them, or rather the One being wholly Unlike the Other. And
Unlike cannot possibly be called Like. By what artifice then
do ye call Unlike like, and consider Like to be unlike, and so
136 Arians had no fixedness, because no earnestness.
COUNC. pretend to say that the Son is the Father's Image ? for if the Son
^D be not like tne Father in substance, something is wanting to
SELEU- the Image, and it is not a complete Image, nor a perfect radi-
Coloss. ance g. How then read ye, In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the
John i Godhead bodily? and from His fulness have all we received ?
16. ' how is it that ye expel the Arian Aetius as an heretic, though
ye say the same with him ? for thy companion is he, O
Acacius, and he became Eudoxius's master in this so great
irreligion'1; which was the reason why Leontius the Bishop
made him deacon, that using the name of the diaconate as
a sheep's clothing, he might be able with impunity to pour
§. 39. forth the words of blasphemy. What then has persuaded you
1 p. 81, to contradict each other l, and to procure to yourselves so
great a disgrace ? You cannot give any good account of it ;
this supposition only remains, that all you do is but outward
profession and pretence, to secure the countenance of Con-
stantius and the gain from thence accruing. And ye make
nothing of accusing the Fathers, and ye complain outright of
the expressions as being unscriptural ; and, as it is written,
Ez. 16, have opened thy feet to every one that passed by; so as to
change as often as they wish, in whose pay and keep you
are.
9. Yet, though a man use terms not in Scripture, it makes no
difference, so that his meaning be religious !. But the heretic,
§ Athan. here says, that when they h Aetius was the first to carry out
spoke of " like," they could not con- Arianism in its pure Anomcean form,
sistently mean any thing short of " like- as Eunomius was its principal apologist,
ness of substance," for this is the only He was horn in humble life, and was at
true likeness ; and that, while they used first a practitioner in medicine. After
Ihe words awa^aXXaxTa; tlxuv, unvary- a time he became a pupil of the Arian
ing image, to exclude all essential like- Paulinus ; then the guest of Athanasius
ness, was to suppose instead an image of Nazarbi ; then the pupil of Leontius
varying utterly from its original. It of Antioch, who ordained him deacon?
must not be supposed from this that he and afterwards deposed him. This was
approves the phrase opotos xar ovvictv or in 350. In 351 he seems to have held
ifMtovettg, in this Treatise, for infr. §. a dispute with Basil of Ancyra, at Sir-
53. he rejects it on the ground that mium ; in the beginning of 360 he was
when we speak of " like," we imply formally condemned in the Council of
qualities, not substance. According to Constantinople, which confirmed the
him then the phrase "unvarying image" Creed of Ariminnm, and just before
was, strictly speaking, self-contra- Eudoxius had been obliged to anathe-
dictory, for every image varies from matize his confession of faith This
the original because it is an image, was at the very time Athan. wrote the
Yet he himself frequently uses it, as present work.
other Fathers, and Orat. i. $. 26. uses * vid.p.31, note p. And so S. Gregory
oftoto; *%{ ovfitts- And all human terms in a well-known passage ; " Why art
are imperfect; and "image" itself is thou such a slave to the letter, and
used in Scripture. takest up with Jewish wisdom, and
Scripture uses terms not in Scripture. 137
though he use scriptural terms, yet, as being equally dan- CHAP.
gerous and depraved, shall be asked in the words of the - IIL—
Spirit, Why dost thou preach My laws, and takest My cove- ps. 50,
nant in tliy mouth ? Thus whereas the devil, though speaking I6<
from the Scriptures, is silenced by the Saviour, the blessed Paul,
though he speaks from profane writers, The Cretans are always Tit. 1,2.
liars, and, For we are His offspring, and Evil communications ^gcts 17>
corrupt good manners, yet has a religious meaning, as being i Cor.
holy, — is doctor of the nations, in faith and verity, as having l ^?^'
the mind of Christ, and what he speaks, he utters reli- 2, 7.
giously. What then is there even plausible, in the Arian 2, \Q'
terms, in which the caterpillar and the locust l are preferred to Joel 2,
the Saviour, and He is reviled with " Once Thou wast not," ??' lg
and " Thou wast created," and " Thou art foreign to God P. ioi.
in substance," and, in a word, no insult is spared against
Him ? On the other hand, what good word have our Fathers
omitted? yea rather, have they not a lofty view and a Christ-
loving religiousness ? And yet these men have written, " We
reject the words ;" while those others they endure in their insults
towards the Lord, and betray to all men, that for no other cause
do they resist that great Council but that it condemned the
Arian heresy. For it is on this account again that they speak
against the term One in substance, about which they also en-
tertain wrong sentiments. For if their faith was orthodox, and
they confessed the Father as truly Father, believed the Son to
be genuine Son, and by nature true Word and Wisdom of the
Father, and as to saying that the Son is from God, if they did
not use the words of Him as of themselves, but understood
Him to be the proper offspring of the Father's substance, as
the radiance is from light, they would not every one of them
have found fault with the Fathers; but would have been con-
fident that the Council wrote suitably ; and that this is the
orthodox faith concerning our Lord Jesus Christ.
10. " But," say they, " the sense of such expressions is ob- §. 40.
pursuest syllables to the loss of things ? for words belong as much to him who de-
For if thou wert to say, ' twice five,' or mands them as to him who utters." Orat.
' twice seven,' and I concluded ' ten' 31. 24. vid. also Hil. contr. Constant,
or ' fourteen' from your words, or from 16. August. Ep. 238. n. 4 — 6. Cyril.
' a reasonable mortal animal 'I concluded Dial. i. p. 391. Petavius refers toother
' man,' should I seem to you absurd? passages, de Trin.iv. 5. §. 6.
how so, if I did but give your meaning ?
3 p. 10
note g
138 Pretence that the Nicene Symbols are obscure.
CouNc.scure to us;" for this is another of their pretences, — " We
AND reject them1," say they, " because we cannot master their
SELEU- meaning." But if they were true in this profession, instead
1 *' 8* of saying, " We reject them," they should ask instruction
from the well informed ; else ought they to rej ect whatever
they cannot understand in divine Scripture, and to find fault
with the writers. But this were the crime of heretics rather
than of us Christians ; for what we do not understand in the
sacred oracles, instead of rejecting, we seek from persons to
whom the Lord has revealed it, and from them we ask for in-
struction. But since they thus make a pretence of the
obscurity of such expressions, let them at least confess what
9p-3i, is annexed to the Creed, and anathematize those who hold2
that " the Son is from nothing," and " He was not before
His generation," and " the Word of God is a creature and
work," and " He is alterable by nature," and " from another
subsistence ;" and in a word let them anathematize the
Arian heresy, which has originated such irreligion3. Nor let
them say any more, " We reject the terms," but that " we
do not yet understand them ;" by way of having some
reason to shew for declining them. But well know I, and
am sure, and they know it too, that if they could confess all
this and anathematize the Arian heresy, they would no
4 P. 5, longer deny those terms of the Council4. For on this account
eL it was that the Fathers, after declaring that the Son was
begotten from the Father's substance, and One in substance
with Him, thereupon added, " But those who say," (what has
just been quoted, the symbols of the Arian heresy,) " we
anathematize ;" I mean, in order to shew that the statements
are parallel, and that the terms in the Creed imply the dis-
claimers subjoined, and that all who confess the terms, will
certainly understand the disclaimers. But those who both
dissent from the latter and impugn the former, such men are
proved on every side to be foes of Christ.
§. 41 . 11. Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently
exposed by these brief remarks ; those, however, who accept
every thing else that was defined at Nicsea, and quarrel only
about the One in substance, must not be received as enemies;
nor do we here attack them as Ario-maniacs, nor as oppo-
nents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as
Semi- Ar tans not to be regarded as Arians. 139
brothers with brothers1, who mean what we mean, and dispute CHAP.
only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from }-^—
the substance of the Father, and not from other subsistence 2, p/ui,
and that He is not creature nor work, but His genuine and J6.^
natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father asp. 66. '
being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from ac-
cepting even the phrase " One in substance ;" of whom is Basil
of Ancyra, in what he has written concerning the faith". For
only to say " like according to substance," is very far from
signifying " of the substance3," by which, rather, as they say3 p. 64,
themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father is
signified. Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, and gilt
brass to the true metal ; but tin is not from silver, nor could
a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog1. But since they
say that He is " of the substance" and " Like in sub-
stance," what do they signify by these but " One in sub-
stance m ?" For, while to say only " Like in substance,"
does not necessarily convey " of the substance," on the
contrary, to say " One in substance," is to signify the
meaning of both terms, " Like in substance," and " of the
substance." And accordingly they themselves in contro-
versy with those who say that the Word is a creature,
instead of allowing Him to be genuine Son, have taken their
proofs against them from human illustrations of son and
father", with this exception that God is not as man, nor the
k Basil, who wrote against Marcel- lous slanders.
lus, and was placed by the Arians in his J So alsodeDecr. §.23.p.40. Hyp. Mel.
see, has little mention in history till the etEuseb.Hil.deSyn.89.vid.p.35,noteu.
date of the Council of Sardica, which p. 64, note i. The illustration runs into
deposed him. Constantius, however, this position, "Things thatare like, can-
stood his friend, till the beginning of not be the same." vid. p. 136, note g. On
the year 360, when Acacius supplanted the other hand, Athan. himself contends
him in the Imperial favour, and he was for the ravrbv T« auntum, " the same
banished into Illyricum. This was a in likeness." de Leer. 5. 20. p. 35. vid.
month or two later than the date at infr. note r.
which Athan. wrote his first draught m vid. Socr. iii. 25. p. 204. a. b. Una
or edition of this work. He was con- snbsfantia religiose prsedicabitur quse ex
demned upon charges of tyranny, and nativitatis proprlet&te et ex natures simi-
the like, but Theodoret speaks highly litudine ita indifferens sit, ut una dica-
of his correctness of life and Sozomen tur. Hil. de Syn. 67.
of his learning and eloquence, vid. m Here at iast Athan. alludes to the
Theod. Hist. ii. 20. 802. ii. 33. A Ancyrene Synodal Letter, vid. Epiph.
very little conscientiousness, or even Hser. 73. 5 and 7. about which he has
decency of manners, would put a man in kept a pointed silence above, when trac-
strong relief with the great Arian party ing the course of the Arian confessions,
which surrounded the Court, and a very That is, he treats the Semi-arians as
great deal would not have been enough tenderly as S. Hilary, as soon as they
to secure him against their unscrupu- break company with the Arians. The
Prov. 8,
John 14,
§. 10.
P- l7-
140 Tlie Son of God not like a human offspring.
generation of the Son as offspring of man, but as one which may
be ascribed to God, and it becomes us to think. Thus they
have called the Father the Fount of Wisdom and Life, and the
Son the Radiance of the Eternal Light, and the Offspring from
the Fountain, as He says, / am the Life, and / Wisdom
dwell iL'itli Prudence. But the Radiance from the Light, and
Offspring from Fountain, and Son from Father, how can these
be so suitably expressed as by " One in substance ?"
12. And is there any cause of fear, lest, because the offspring
from men are one in substance, the Son, by being called One
in substance, be Himself considered as a human offspring
too ? perish the thought ! not so ; but the explanation is easy.
For the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom; whence we
learn the impassibility and indivisibility1 of such a generation
^om t]ie Father". For not even man's word is part of Him,
nor proceeds from Him according to passion2; much less
God's Word ; whom the Father has declared to be His own
Son, lest, on the other hand, if we merely heard of " Word,"
Ancyrene Council of 358 was a protest
against the " blasphemia" or second
Sirmian Confession, which. Hosius
signed.
B It is usual with the Fathers to use
the two terms " Son" and " Word" to
guard and complete the ordinary sense
of each other. Their doctrine is that
our Lord is both, in a certain transcend-
ent, prototypical, and singular sense ;
that in that high sense that are coinci-
dent with one another; that they are ap-
plied to human things by an accommoda-
tion, as far as these are shadows of Him
to whom properly they really belong ;
that being but partially realized on earth,
the ideas gained from the earthly types
are but imperfect ; that in consequence
if any one of them is used exclusively of
Him, it tends to introduce wrong ideas
respecting Him ; but that their re-
spective imperfections lying on different
sides, when used together they correct
each other, vid. p. 18, note o. and p. 43,
note d. The term Son, used by it-
self, was abused into Arianism ; and
the term Word into Sabellianism ; again
the term Son might be accused of in-
troducing material notions, and the term
Word of imperfection and transitori-
ness. Each of them corrected the other.
" Scripture, " says Athan. " joining
the two, has said ' Son,' that the natural
and true offspring of the substance may
be preached ; but that no one may un-
derstand a human offspring, signifying
His substance a second time, it calls
Him Word, and Wisdom, and Ra-
diance." Orat. i. §. 28. vid. p. 20, note t.
vid. also iv. §. 8. Euseb. contr. Marc,
ii. 4. p. 54. Isid. Pel. Ep. iv. 141.
So S. Cyril says that we learn " from
His being called Son that He is from
Him, rt \\ aurav; from His being called
Wisdom and Word, that He is in Him,"
TO iv KVTM. Thesaur. iv. p. 31. How-
ever, S. Athanasius observes, that pro-
perly speaking the one term implies the
other, i. e. in its fulness. " Since the
Son's being is from the Father, there-
fore He is in the Father." Orat. iii.
§. 3. " If not Son, not Word either ;
and if not Word, not Son. For what is
from the Father is Son ; and what is
from the Father, but the Word, &c."
Orat. iv. §. 24. fin. On the other hand
the heretics accused Catholics of in-
consistency, or of a union of opposite
errors, because they accepted all the
Scripture images together. But Vi-
gilius of Thapsus says, that " error
bears testimony to truth, and the dis-
cordant opinions of misbelievers blend
in concordance in the rule of ortho-
doxy." contr. Eutych. ii. init. Grande
miraculum, ut expugnatione sui veritas
confirmetur. ibid. circ. init. vid. also i.
init. and Eulogius, ap. Phot. 225. p. 759.
Inconsistent to admit "of the" not "one in Substance.'" 141
we should suppose Him, such as is the word of man, unsub- CHAP.
sistent l ; but that, hearing that He is Son, we may acknow- — ^V
ledge Him to be a living Word and a substantive2 Wisdom. ,*™*o*'
Accordingly, as in saying "offspring," we have no human I*""'™"
thoughts, and, though we know God to be a Father, we^' '
entertain no material ideas concerning Him, but while we
listen to these illustrations and terms3, we think suitably of3 p. 153,
God, for He is not as man, so in like manner, when we hear"0
of " one in substance," we ought to transcend all sense, and,
according to the Proverb, understand ly the understanding Prov.
that is set before us; so as to know, that not by will, but in23' l'
truth, is He genuine from the Father, as Life from Fountain,
and Radiance from Light. Else4 why should we understand4 vid.
" offspring" and " son," in no corporeal way, while we conceive H^. '
of " one in substance" as after the manner of bodies ? espe- 73- 3-
&C«
cially since these terms are not here used about different
subjects, but of whom " offspring" is predicated, of Him is
" one in substance" also. And it is but consistent to attach
the same sense to both expressions as applied to the Saviour,
and not to interpret " offspring," as is fitting, and " one in
substance" otherwise ; since to be consistent, ye who are thus
minded and who say that the Son is Word and Wisdom of
the Father, should entertain a different view of these terms
also, and understand in separate senses Word, and in dis-
tinct senses Wisdom. But, as this would be extravagant,
(for the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom, and the
Offspring from the Father is one and proper to His substance,)
so the sense of " offspring" and " one in substance" is one,
and whoso considers the Son an offspring, rightly considers
Him also as " one in substance."
13. This is sufficient to shew that the phrase of " one in §. 43.
substance" is not foreign nor far from the meaning of these
much loved persons5. But since, as they allege6, (for I have 5 p. 157,
not the Epistle in question,) the Bishops who condemned e rid.*'
Samosatene0 have laid down in writing that the Son is not Hilar.
one in substance with the Father, and so it comes to pass that si init.
Epiph.
Hajr.73.
0 There were three Councils held text, which contrary to the opinion of 12.
against Paul of Samosata, of the dates Pagi, S. Basnage, and Tillemont,
of 264, 269, and an intermediate Pearson fixes at 265 or 266.
year. The third is spoken of in the
142 Dionysius u^ed " One in Substance" if not Anliochenes.
COUNC. they, for reverence and honour towards the aforesaid, thus feel
^NiT' about that expression, it will be to the purpose reverently to
SELEU. argue with them this point also. Certainly it is unbecoming to
make the one company conflict with the other ; for all are
fathers ; nor is it religious to settle, that these have spoken
well, and those ill ; for all of them have gone to sleep in
Christ. Nor is it right to be disputatious, and to compare
the respective numbers of those who met in the Councils, or
the three hundred may seem to throw the lesser into the
shade ; nor to compare the dates, lest those who preceded
seem to eclipse those that came after. For all, I say, are
Fathers ; and, any how the three hundred laid down nothing
new, nor was it in any self-confidence that they became
champions of words not in Scripture, but they started from
their Fathers, as the others, and they used their words. For
there were two Bishops of the name of Dionysius, much
older than the seventy who deposed Samosatene, of whom
one was of Rome, and the other of Alexandria; and a
charge had been laid by some persons against the Bishop of
Alexandria before the Bishop of Rome, as if he had said
that the Son was made, and not one in substance with the
Father. This had given great pain to the Roman Council ;
and the Bishop of Rome expressed their united sentiments
in a letter to his namesake. This led to his writing an ex-
planation which he calls the Book of Refutation and Apology;
and it runs thus :
§. 44. 14. And ' I have written in another Letter, a refutation of the false
1 vid. charge which they bring against me, that 1 deny that Christ is one
?e2^ecr' in substance with God. For though I say that I have not found
p. 44. or yeac* t^1^s term anv where in holy Scripture, yet my remarks'2
2 l*t%ti- which follow, and which they have not noticed, are not incon-
sistent with that belief. For I instanced a human production,
which is evidently homogeneous, and I observed that undeniably
fathers differred from their children, only in not being the same
individuals ; otherwise there could be neither parents nor children.
And my Letter, as I said before, owing to present circumstances,
I am unable to produce, or I would have sent you the very
words I used, or rather a copy of it all ; which, if I have an op-
portunity, I will do still. But I am sure from recollection, that
I adduced many parallels of things kindred with each other, for
instance, that a plant grown from seed or from root, was other
than that from which it sprang, and yet altogether one in nature
with it ; and that a stream flowing from a fountain, changed its
Apparent contradictions in Scripture. 143
appearance and its name, for that neither the fountain was called CHAP.
stream, nor the stream fountain, but both existed, and that the HI.
fountain was as it were father, but the stream was what was
generated from the fountain.
15. Thus the Bishop. If then any one finds fault with the §. 45.
Fathers at Nicaea, as if they contradicted the decisions of
their predecessors, he may reasonably find fault also with the
Seventy, because they did not keep to the statements of their
own predecessors; for such were the two Dionysii and
the Bishops assembled on that occasion at Rome. But
neither these nor those is it religious to blame ; for all were
legates of the things of Christ, and all gave diligence against
the heretics, and while the one party condemned Samosatene,
the other condemned the Arian heresy. And rightly did both
these and those define, and suitably to the matter in hand. And
as the blessed Apostle, writing to the Romans, said, Tlie Law Rom. 7,
is spiritual, the Law is holy, and the commandment holy and14' 12'
just and good; (and soon after, What the Law could not do, Rom. 8,
in that it was weak,) but wrote to the Hebrews, The Law ^eb 7
wade no one perfect ; and to the Galatians, By the Law no ii>-
one is justified, but to Timothy, Tlie Law is good, if a man \\t '
use it laufidly ; and no one would accuse the Saint of*Tim<1>
inconsistency and variation in writing, but rather would
admire how suitably he wrote to each, to teach the Romans
and the others to turn from the letter to the spirit, but to
instruct the Hebrews and Galatians to place their hopes, not
in the Law, but in the Lord who gave the Law ; — so, if the
Fathers of the two Councils made different mention of the
One in substance, we ought not in any respect to differ from
them, but to investigate then- meaning, and this will fully
shew us the meaning of both the Councils. For they who
deposed Samosatene, took One in substance in a bodily
sense, because Paul had attempted sophistry and said, " Unless
Christ has of man become God, it follows that He is One in
substance with the Father ; and if so, of necessity there are
three substances, one the previous substance, and the other two
from it ;" and therefore guarding against this they said with good
reason, that Christ was not One in substance?. For the Son
P This is in fact the objection which stance, supr. §. 16. when he calls it the
Arius urges against the One in sub- doctrine of Manicheeus and Hieracas,
144 Why the Council o/Antioch declined "One in Substance."
COUNC. is not related to the Father as he imagined. But the Bishops
A™*' who anathematized the Arian heresy, understanding Paul's
SELEU. craft, and reflecting that the word " One in substance," has not
this meaning when used of things immaterial q, and especially
of God, and acknowledging that the Word was not a creature,
but an offspring from the substance, and that the Father's
substance was the origin and root and fountain of the Son,
• aw*- and that He was of very truth1 His Father's likeness, and not
*"*'** of different nature, as we are, and separate from the Father,
but that, as being from Him, He exists as Son indivisible,
as radiance is with respect of Light, and knowing too the
illustrations used in Dionyius's case, the " fountain," and the
defence of " One in substance," and before this the Saviour's
Mvrf saying, symbolical of unity2, / and the Father are one, and
re/ ;8' he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, on these grounds
Johnio, reasonably asserted on their part, that the Son was One
Johni4,m substance. And as, according to a former remark, no
9- one would blame the Apostle, if he wrote to the Romans
about the Law in one way, and to the Hebrews in another ;
in like manner, neither would the present Bishops find fault
with the ancient, in regard to their interpretation, nor
again on the view of theirs and of the need of their so
writing about the Lord, would the ancient censure the
present.
vid. p. 97, note 1. The same objection that the Son was a distinct being from
is protested against by S. Basil, contr. the Father, and appealing to (what
Eunom. i. 19. Hilar. de Trin. iv. 4. might be plausibly maintained) that
Yet, while S. Basil agrees with Athan. spirits are incommeasurable with one
in his account of the reason of the another, or that each is sui simile, con-
Council's rejection of the word, S. eluded that " like in substance" was
Hilary on the contrary reports that Paul the only term which would express the
himself accepted it, i. e. in a Sabellian relation of the Son to the Father. Here
sense, and therefore the Council rejected then the word " one in substance" did
it. " Male homousion Samosatenus con- just enable the Catholics to join issue
fessus est, sed numquid melius Arii ne- with them, as exactly expressing what
gaverunt." de Syn. 86. the Catholics wished to express, viz. that
1 The Eusebians tried to establish a there was no such distinction between
distinction between opoovcrtov and Ipoi- Them as made the term " like" neces-
ovo-iev, " one in substance" and '• like sary, but that Their relation to Each
in substance," of this sort; that the Other was analogous to that of a material
former belonged to things material, and offspring to a material parent, or that
the latter to immaterial, Soz. iii. 18. a as material parent and offspring are
remark which in itself was quite suf- individuals under one common species,
ficient to justify the Catholics in insist- so the Eternal Father and Son are
ing on the former term. For the heretical Persons under one common individual
party, starting with the notion in which substance.
their heresy in all its shades consisted,
Each Council acted with a reason. 145
16. Yes surely, each Council had a sufficient reason for its CHAP.
own language ; for since Samosatene held that the Son was —
not before Mary, but received from her the origin of His
being, therefore the assembled Fathers deposed him and
pronounced him heretic ; but concerning the Son's Godhead
writing in simplicity, they arrived not at accuracy concerning
the One in substance, but, as they understood the word, so spoke
they about it. For they directed all their thoughts to destroy
the device of Samosatene, and to shew that the Son was
before all things, and that, instead of becoming God from man,
God had put on a servant's form, and the Word had become
flesh, as John says. This is how they dealt with the
blasphemies of Paul; but when the party of Eusebius and
Arius said that though the Son was before time, yet was
He made and one of the creatures, and as to the phrase
" from God," they did not believe it in the sense of His being
genuine Son from Father, but maintained it as it is said of
the creatures, and as to the oneness1" of likeness1 between the ' vid.
Son and the Father, did not confess that the Son is like the H*r.73.
Father according to substance, or according to nature, but9fin>
because of Their agreement of doctrines and of teaching2;2 P- 107}
nay, when they drew a line and an utter distinction between
the Son's substance and the Father, ascribing to Him an
origin of being, other than the Father, and degrading Him to
the creatures, on this account the Bishops assembled at
Nicaea, with a view to the craft of the parties so thinking,
and as bringing together the sense from the Scriptures,
cleared up the point, by affirming the " One in substance ;"
that both the true genuineness of the Son might thereby be
known, and that things generated might be ascribed nothing in
6[*.oiu<rtca; Ivarjjra. and so the Son." iii. §. 5. tin. The Father's
iuffti de Deer. §. 20. p. 35. godhead is the Son's. <r£ <rar^/*ov Qus o
»J? Qvcrteas xcti <rtjv rtx,u<TOTr>rtx, viaf. iii. §. 53. piav rw Siorwra, x<xi vo'l^iav
vov ip<yro?.ib5d.$.24.p.41 init. also§. 23. T^S curias rou fctrgo's. §. 56. "As the
And Basil. rxi/Tortira, <rns Qvtrius. Ep.8. water is the same which i< poured from
3. raurortiTa r%s evtrids. Cyril in Joan, fountain into stream, so the godhead of
v. p. 302. Hence it is uniformly as- the Father into the Son is intransitive
serted by the Catholics that the Father's and indivisible, ufpivyruf xa.} &$/a<gir«f.
godhead, horns, is the Son's ; e. g. " the Expos. §. 2. vid. p. 155, note f. This
Father's godhead being in the Son," is the doctrine of the Una Res, which,
infr. §. 52. * vru.<r£ix,v q>v<rts alrev. Orat. being not defined in General Council
i. §. 40. " worshipped xetra. <rnv fa-v^i- till the fourth Lateran, many most
KM ttitdrijTet. §. 42. trurgtxtiv avrov 6to- injuriously accuse the Greek Fathers,
rtirot. §. 45 fin. §. 49 fin. ii. §. 18. $. 73 as the two Gregories, of denying. That
fin. iii. §. 26. " the Father's godhead Council is not here referred to as of
and propriety is the being, rb tt»«i, of authority.
146 As "One in Substance" so "Ingenerate" variously used.
COUNC. common with Him. For the precision of this phrase detects
AAND ' tneir pretence, whenever they use the phrase " from God," and
SELEU. gets ncl of all the subtleties with which they seduce the simple.
For whereas they contrive to put a sophistical construction on
all other words at their will, this phrase only, as detecting
their heresy, do they dread; which the Fathers did set down as
a bulwark8 against their irreligious speculations, one and al].
§.46. 17. Cease we then all contention, nor any longer conflict we
with each other, though the Councils have differently taken the
phrase " One in substance," for we have already assigned a
sufficient defence of them ; and to it the following may be
added : — We have not derived the word " Ingenerate" from
Scripture, (for no where does Scripture call God Ingenerate,)
yet since it has many authorities in its favour, I was curious
1 p- 62, about the term, and found that it too has different senses1.
Some, for instance, call what is, but is neither generated, nor
3 p. 52, has any cause at all, ingenerate; and others, the increate2.
As then a person, having in his mind the former of these
senses, viz. " that which has no cause," might say that the Son
was not ingenerate, yet would not be blaming any one he
perceived looking to the other meaning, "not a work or crea-
ture but an eternal offspring," and affirming accordingly that
the Son was ingenerate, (for both speak suitably with a view
to their own object,) so, even granting that the Fathers have
spoken variously concerning the One in substance, let us not
dispute about it, but take what they deliver to us in a re-
ligious way, when especially their anxiety was directed in
behalf of religion.
§. 47. 18. Ignatius, for instance, who was appointed Bishop in
Antioch after the Apostles, and became a martyr of Christ,
writes concerning the Lord thus : " There is one physician,
fleshly and spiritual, generate and ingenerate, God in man,
J vid. true life in death, both from Mary and from God 3 ;" whereas
E^ph.*. some teachers who followed Ignatius, write in their turn,
fut ; in like manner ffuvturpov the c One in substance.' " Heer. 69. 70.
s. Epiph. Ancor. 6. " Without the " That term did the Fathers set down
confession of the One in ' substance,' " in their formula of faith, which they
says Epiphanius, " no heresy can be re- perceived to be a source of dread to
futed ; for as a serpent hates the smell of their adversaries ; that they themselves
bitumen, and the scent of sesame-cake, might unsheath the sword whtch cut
and the burning of agate, and the smoke off the head of their own monstrous
of storax, so do Arius and Sabellius hate heresy." Ambros. de Fid. iii. 15.
the notion of the sincere profession of
We ouyht toentcr into the Fathers' meaning ^not carpal if. 147
" One is the Ingenerate, the Father, and one the genuine
Son from Him, true offspring, Word and Wisdom of the '—
Father1." If therefore we have hostile feelings towards these
writers, then have we right to quarrel with the Councils ; but
if, knowing their faith in Christ, we are persuaded that the
blessed Ignatius was orthodox in writing that Christ was
generate on account of the flesh, (for He was made flesh,) yet
ingenerate, because He is not in the number of things made
and generated, but Son from Father, and are aware too that the
parties who have said that the Ingenerate is One, meaning
the Father, did not mean to lay down that the Word was
generated and made, but that the Father has no cause, but
rather is Himself Father of Wisdom, and in Wisdom hath
made all things that are generated, why do we not combine all
our Fathers in religious belief, those who deposed Samosatene
as well as those who proscribed the Arian heresy, instead of
making distinctions between them and refusing to entertain a
right opinion of them ? I repeat, that these, looking towards
the sophistical explanation of Samosatene, wrote, " He is not
one in substance";" and those with an apposite meaning, said
that He was. For myself, 1 have written these brief remarks,
from my feeling towards persons who were religious to
Christ-ward; but were it possible to come by the Epistle
which we are told that they wrote, I consider we should
find further grounds for the aforesaid proceeding of these
blessed men. For it is right and meet thus to feel, and
to maintain a good understanding with the Fathers, if we
be not spurious children, but have received the traditions
from them, and the lessons of religion at their hands.
19. Such then, as we confess and believe, being the sense of§. 48.
the Fathers, proceed we even in their company to examine once
t The writer is not known. The sion in this volume. The lamented Dr.
President of Magdalen has pointed out Burton, in Mr. Faber's Apostolicity of
to the Editor the following similar pas- Trinitarianism, vol. 2. p. 302. is the
sage in St. Clement. 1* (*\v <rb ay'innron, last writer who has denied the rejection
o *cttroxga,T<u£ fibs, iv 11 xctl ri vr^eyiwn- of the symbol; but, (as appears to the
fa 2/' ou TO. vavret iyivtro, xai %*>£{ present writer,) not on sufficient grounds.
tiurov tyivire ofit iv. Strom, vi. 7. p. 769. Eeference is made to a Creed or Ecthe-
11 There is much to say on the sub- sis, found among the acts of Ephesus,
ject of the rejection of the opaova-ttv at and said to have been published against
this Council of Antioch; but it branches Paul; and on this some remarks are
into topics too far from the text of A tha- made in Note p. 165.
nasius to allow of its satisfactory discus-
L 2
148 " Of the Substance" implies " One in Substance"
COUNC. more the matter, calmly and with a good understanding, with
A™™ reference to what has been said before, viz. whether the Bishops
SELEU. collected at Nicaea did not really exercise an excellent judg-
ment. For if the Word be a work and foreign to the Father's
substance, so that He is separated from the Father by the
difference of nature, He cannot be one in substance with
Him, but rather He is homogeneous by nature with the
1 supr. works, though He surpass them in grace1. On the other hand,
if we confess that He is not a work but the genuine offspring
of the Father's substance, it would follow that He is inse-
2 tpotprf parable from the Father, being connatural 2, because He is
begotten from Him. And being such, good reason He
should be called One in Substance. Next, if the Son be not
*furto- such from participation3, but is in His substance the Father's
Word and Wisdom, and this substance is the offspring of
4 p- 155, the Father's substance 4, and its likeness as the radiance is of
John 10, the light, and the Son says, / and the Father are One, and he
j°' that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, how must we
9. 'understand these words ? or how shall we so explain them as
to preserve the oneness of the Father and the Son ? Now as
•> ft*?- to its consisting in agreement5 of doctrines, and in the Son's not
I07,note disagreeing with the Father, as the Arians say, such an inter-
£ yet pretation will not stand ; for both the Saints and still more
Hipp. Angels and Archangels have such an agreement with God,
™*fr. ^ anci t}iere is no disagreement among them. For he who was
in disagreement, the devil, was beheld to fall from the
heavens, as the Lord said. Therefore if by reason of agree-
ment the Father and the Son are one, there would be things
generate which had this agreement with God, and each of
these might say, / and the Father are One. But if this be
shocking, and so it truly is, it follows of necessity that we
*xn4m must conceive of Son's and Father's oneness in the way of
Cyril. ^stance. For things generated, though they have an agree-
Jufviii ment ^^ ^ieil Mater' yet Possess it only by influence6, and
p. 274!'hy participation, and through the mind; the transgression
Nyw' °f whicl1 forfeits heaven. But the Son, being an offspring
de Horn, from the substance, is one in substance, Himself and the
' Father that begat Him-
20- This is why He has equality with the Father by titlevS
exPressive of unity7, and what is said of the Father, is said in
Tfie Son has all things of the Father, but being the Father. 1 49
Scripture of the Son also, all but His being called Father x. CHAP.
For the Son Himself says, All things that the Father hath IIL
are Mine ; and He says to the Father, All Mine are Thine, John
and Thine are Mine; — as for instance1, the name God; for j^'hn6*
the Word was God; — Almighty, Thus saith He that is, and 17, 10.
that was, and that is to come, the Almighty; — the being oVat 'iii
Light, I am, He says, the Light; — the Operative Cause, All*-4-
things were made by Him, and whatsoever I see the Father i, i.
do, I do also; — the being Everlasting, His eternal power and^°c-
godhead, and In the beginning was the Word, and He was John
the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into j'0hn"
the world ; — the being Lord, for The Lord rained fire andl>Sm
brimstone from the Lord, and the Father says, / am the 5, 19.
Lord, and Thus saith the Lord, the Almighty God; and off°2™'
the Son Paul speaks thus, One Lord Jesus Christ, through Jonn
whom all things. And on the Father Angels serve, andj'0hn
again the Son too is worshipped by them, And let all the1*9*
Angels of God worship Him ; and He is said to be Lord of 19, 24.
Angels, for the Angels ministered unto Him, and the Son 0/gSa> 45>
Man shall send His Angels. The being honoured as the i Cor.
Father, for that they may honour the Son, He says, as they T'he*b
honour the Father ; — being equal to God, He thought it not1-* 6*
robbery to be equal with God; — the being Truth from the True, 4 \\\
and Life from the Living, as being truly from the Fountain of Ma*t-
the Father; — the quickening and raising the dead as the John
Father, for so we read in the Gospel. And of the Father itp^f'
is written, The Lord thy God is One Lord, and The God 0/2, e."
gods the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth; andg6^'
of the Son, The Lord God hath sinned upon us, and The GodPs-^,i.
Ps. 118
of Gods shall be seen in Sion. And again of God, Esaias27.
says, Who is a God like unto Thee, taking away iniquities?*1***
x By "the Sen being equal to the Father, «/«&>» Quotw xxi a
Father," is but meant that He is His x.a.ra. T«vra oftoia *u -mr^i, irXvv T?J
" unvarying image ;" it does not imply afyivina-ixf xa.} T»J> far^ortiros. Uamasc.
any distinction of substance. (l Per- de Imag. iii. 18. p. 354. vid. also Basil.
fectsb sequalitatis signiticantiam habet contr. Eun. ii. 28. Theod. Inconfus.
similitude." Hil. de Syn. 73. But though p. 91. Basil. Ep. 38. 7 fin. For the
He is in all things His Image, this Son is the Image of the Father, not
implies some exception, for else He as Father, but as God. The Arians
would not be like or equal, but the on the other hand, objecting the
same. " Non est sequalitas in dissimi- phrase "unvarying image," asked why
libus, nee similitude est intra unum." the Son was not in consequence a
ibid. 72. Hence He is the Father's Father, and the beginning of a tuyiv'm.
image in all things except in being the Athan. Orat. i. 21. vid, infra, note z.
150 The Son is One with the Father, because equal to Him.
passing over unrighteousness? but the Son said to
ARIM. w]lom jje would, Thy sins be forgiven Thee; for instance,
SEI.EU. when, on the Jews murmuring, He manifested the remission
Matt, by His act? saying to the paralytic, Rise, take up thy
Mark bed, and go unto thy house. And of God Paul says, To the
l*Tim King eternal; and again of the Son, David in the Psalm,
i, 17.^ Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up ye ever-
"•24''' lasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in. And
Dan. Daniel heard it said, His Kingdom is an everlasting King-
Dan dom, and His Kingdom shall not be destroyed. And in
7, 14. a word, all that you find said of the Father, so much will
you find said of the Son, all but His being Father, as has
been said.
§. 50. 24. If then any think of other origin, and other Father, con-
sidering the equality of these attributes, it is a mad thought.
But if, since the Son is from the Father, all that is the
Father's is the Son's as in an Image and Expression, let it
be considered dispassionately, whether a substance foreign
from the Father's substance admit of such attributes; and
whether such a one be other in nature and alien in sub-
1 «AX«- stance 1, and not one in substance with the Father. For we
J'U^'must take reverent heed, lest transferring what is proper2 to
the Father to what is unlike Him in substance, and express-
3«yfl/^/0-ing the Father's godhead by what is unlike in kind3 and alien
in substance, we introduce another substance foreign to Him,
yet capable of the properties of the first substance y, and lest
Isai. we be silenced by God Himself, saying, My glory I will not
give to another, and be discovered worshipping this alien
God, and be accounted such as were the Jews of that day, who
John said, Wherefore dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God?
referring, the while, to another source the things of the Spirit,
Lute and blasphemously saying, He casteth out devils through Beel-
zebub. But if this is shocking, plainly the Son is not unlike
in substance, but one in substance with the Father; for if
what the Father hath is by nature the Son's, and the Son
X Arianism was placed in the peril- greatness of the latter error .This of course
ous dilemma ofdenying Christ's divinity, was the objection which attached to the
or introducing a second God. The words ofioiet/fftev. *T«£« A Aaxraf tfxav,
Arians proper went off in the former £c. when disjoined from the opoevtr.ov ;
side of the alternative, the Semi-arians and Eusebius's language, supr. p. 63,
on the latter; and Athan., as here ad- note g, shews us that it is not an
dressing the Semi-avians, insists on the imaginary one.
//' the Son by participation, He could not impart Sonship. 151
Himself is from the Father, and because of this oneness CHAP.
of godhead and of nature He and the Father are one, and He - -
that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father, reasonably is
He called by the Fathers " One in substance ; " for to what
is other in substance, it belongs not to possess such preroga-
tives.
22. And again, if, as we have said before, the Son is not such §.51.
by participation1, but, while all things generated have, by!A*««i»-
participation, the grace of God, He is the Father's Wisdom '"
and Word, of which all things partake2, it follows that He2deDecr.
being the deifying and enlightening power of the Father, in ^ n'0te
which all things are deified and quickened, is not alien ine-
substance from the Father, but one is substance. For by
partaking3 of Him, we partake4 of the Father; because that3 ^ra-
the Word is proper to the Father. Whence, if He was Him- ,*£f*'
self too from participation, and not from the Father His4/"*™-
substantial Godhead and Image, He wrould not deify5, being
deified Himself. For it is not possible that He, wrho but «« Orat-
possesses from participation, should impart of that partaking de Deer'.
to others, since what He has is not His own, but the Giver's ; J^1*'
and what He has received, is barely the grace sufficient for 23.
Himself.
23. However, let us fairly enquire why it is that some, as is
said, decline the " One in substance," whether it does not rather
shew that the Son is one in substance with the Father. They
say then, as you have written, that it is not right to say that
the Son is one in substance with the Father, because He
wiio speaks of one in substance speaks of three, one sub-
stance pre-existing, and that those who are generated from it
are one in substance: and they add, " If then the Son be one
in substance with the Father, then a substance must be
previously supposed, from which they have been generated ;
and that the One is not Father and the Other Son, but they
are brothers together2." As to all this, though it be a Greek
z And so Eunomius in St. Cyril, Son, and brought forth the Son, and re-
" ' Unless once the Son was not,' saith maineth Father, and is not called Son
he, ' or if eternal, and co-existent with of any ; and the Son is Son, and re-
the Father, you make Him not a Son maineth what He is, and is not called
but a brother.' The Father and the brother of any by nature. What place
Son are not from any pre-existing ori- then shall brotherhood have in such ?"
gin, that they should be thought bro- Thesaur. pp. 22, 23. vid. A than. Orat.
thers, but the Father is origin of the i. §. 14.
152 " One in Substance" does not imply a whole and parts.
COUNC. interpretation, and what Greeks say have no claim upon usa,
AND1" stiH ^ us see whether those things which are called one in sub-
SELEU. stance and are collateral, as derived from one substance pre-sup-
posed, are one in substance with each other, or with the sub-
stance from which they are generated. For if only with each
other, then are they other in substance and unlike, when referred
to that substance which generated them; for other in substance
is opposed to one in substance; but if each be one in substance
with the substance which generated them, it is thereby con-
fessed that what is generated from any thing, is one in sub-
stance with that which generated it; and there is no need of
seeking for three substances, but merely to seek, whether it
be true that this is from thatb. For should it happen that
a vid. p. 52, note d. The word ola-'iet
in its Greek or Aristotelic sense seems
to have stood for an individual substance,
i numerically one, which is predicable of
nothing but itself. Improperly it stood
; for a species or genus, vid. Petav. de
I Trin. iv. 1. §. 2. but as Anastasius ob-
serves in many places of his Viee dux,
Christian theology innovated on the
sense of Aristotelic terms, vid. c. 1.
p. 20. c. 6. p. 96. c. 9. p. 150. c. 17.
p. 308. There is some difficulty in de-
termining hoiv it innovated. Anastasius
and Theorian, Hodeg. C. Legat. ad
Ann. pp. 441,2. say that it takes eixrictto
mean an universal or species, but this
is nothing else than the second or im-
proper Greek use. Rather it takes the
word in a sense of its own such as we
have no example of in things created,
viz. that of a Being numerically one, sub-
sisting in three persons; so that the
word is a predicable or in one sense
universal^ without ceasing to be indi-
vidual ; in which consists the mystery
of the Holy Trinity. However, heretics,
who refused the mystery, objected it to
Catholics in its primary philosophical
sense; and then, as standing for an in-
dividual substance, when applied to
Father and Son, it either implied the
parts of a material subject, or it in-
volved no real distinction of persons,
i. e. Sabellianism. The former of these
two alternatives is implied in the text
by the " Greek use ;" the latter by
the same phrase as used by the
conforming Semi-arians, A. D. 363.
" .Nor, as if any passion were sup-
posed of the ineffable generation, is
the term ' substance' taken by the
Fathers, &c. nor according to any
Greek use, Socr. iii. 25. Hence
such charges against Catholicism on
the part of Arians as Alexander pro-
tests against, of either Sabellianism or
Valentinianism, OUK . , . «Wi£ 2a/3eXX/y
*«/ BetXtvTivy $oxt7. Theod. Hist. i. 3.
p. 743. In like manner, Damascene,
speaking of the Jacobite use of Qvrts and
vrefraerig says, " Who of holy men ever
thus spoke? unless ye introduce to us
your St. Aristotle, as a thirteenth Apo-
stle, and prefer the idolater to the di-
vinely inspired." cont. Jacob. 10. p.
399. and so again Leontius, speaking of
Philoponus, who from the Monophysite
confusion of nature and hypostasis was
led into Tritheism. " He thus argued,
taking his start from Aristotelic princi-
ples ; for Aristotle says that there are
of individuals particular substances as
well as one common." de Sect. v. fin.
b The argument, when drawn out,
is virtually this: if, because two sub-
jects are consubstantial, a third is pre-
supposed of which they partake, then,
since either of these two is consubstan-
tial with that of which both partake, a
new third must be supposed in which it
and the pre-existing substance partake,
and thus an infinite series of things
consubstantial must be supposed. The
only mode (which he puts first) of meet-
ing this, is to deny that the two things
are consubstantial with the supposed
third ; but if so, they must be different
in substance from it ; that is, they must
differ from that, as partaking of which,
they are like each other, — which is ab-
surd, vid. Basil. Ep. 52. n. 2.
" One in Substance" does not imply two substances. 153
there were not two brothers, but that only one had come of CHAP.
that substance, he that was generated would not be called — —
alien in substance, merely because there was no other from
that substance than he ; but though alone, he must be one in
substance with him that begat him. For what shall we say
about Jephthae's daughter ; because she was only-begotten, and
he had not, says Scripture, other child; and again, concerning jud. n,
the widow's son, whom the Lord raised from the dead, be- 34'
cause he too had no brother, but was only-begotten, was on
that account neither of these one in substance with the pa-
rent ? Surely they were, for they were children, and this is
a property of children with reference to their parents. And
in like manner also, when the Fathers said that the Son of
God was from His substance, reasonably have they spoken of
Him as one in substance. For the like property has the
radiance compared with the light. Else it follows that not
even the creation came out of nothing. For whereas men
beget with passion1, so again they work upon an existing sub- » Orat.i.
ject matter, and otherwise cannot make. But if we do not* "
understand creation in a human way c, when we attribute it to
God, much less seemly is it to understand generation in a
human way, or to give a corporeal sense to One in substance ;
instead of receding from things generate, casting away human
images, nay, all things sensible, and ascending2 to the Father3, 9 Naz.
lest we rob the Father of the Son in ignorance, and rank2<ra
Him among His own creatures.
24. Further, if, in confessing Father and Son, we spoke of two §. 52.
origins or two Gods, as Marcion3 and Valentinus4, or said that3 p. 45,
the Son had any other mode of godhead, and was not the Image J '
and Expression of the Father, as being by nature bom from 3.
c vid. de Deer. §. 11. supr. p. 18, human sense which can apply to Him.
note o. also Cyril, Thesaur. iv. p. 29. Now <y'twtjfis implies two things, — pas-
Basil, contr. Eun. ii. 23. Hil. de Syn. sion, and relationship, oixtiaris <pv<rtus;
17. accordingly we must take the latter as
d S. Basil says in like manner that, an indication of the divine sense of the
though God is Father xv^iug properly, term. On the terms Son, Word, &c.
(vid. Ath. Orat. i. 21 fin. and p. 16, being figurative, or illustrations, and
note k. p. 18, note o. p. 56, note k.) how to use them, vid. also de Deer,
yet it comes to the same thing if we §. 12. supr. p. 20. Orat. i. §. 26, 27. ii.
were to say that He is r£tirix&>{ and §. 32. iii. §. 18. 67. Basil, contr. Eunom.
i* Ati~«<p«g«?, figuratively, such; contr. ii. 17. Hil. de Trin. iv. 2. Vid. also
Eun. ii. 24. for in that case we must, as Athan. ad Scrap, i. 20. and Basil. Ep.
in other metaphors used of Him, (anger, 38. n. 5. and what is said of the office
sleep, Hying,) take that part of the of faith in each of these.
154 TkeFatket andSon not two Gods,for theSonfrom the Father,
COUNC. Him, then He might be considered unlike ; for such sub-
AAND stances are altogether unlike each other. But if we acknow-
SEI/EU. ledge that the Father's godhead is one and sole, and that of
Him the Son is the Word and Wisdom ; and, as thus believ-
ing, are far from speaking of two Gods, but understand the
oneness of the Son with the Father to be, not in likeness of their
teaching, but according to substance and in truth, and hence
speak not of two Gods hut of one God; there being but one
Face6 of Godhead, as the Light is one and the Radiance ; (for
Gen. 32, this was seen by the Patriarch Jacob, as Scripture says, The
sun rose upon him when the Face of God passed by ; and
beholding this, and understanding of whom He was Son
and Image, the holy Prophets say, Tlie Word of the Lord
came to me ; and recognising the Father, who was beheld
and revealed in Him, they were bold to say, The God of our
fathers hath appeared unto me, the God of Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob;} this being so, wherefore scruple we to
call Him one in substance who is one with the Father, and
appears as doth the Father, according to likeness and oneness
of godhead ? For if, as has been many times said, He has
it not to be proper to the Father's substance, nor to resem-
ble, as a Son, we may well scruple : but if this be the il-
luminating and creative Power, specially proper to the Father,
without whom He neither frames nor is known, (for all things
consist through Him and in Him ;) wherefore, having cog-
nizance of this truth, do we decline to use the phrase convey-
ing it ? For what is it to be thus connatural with the Father,
but to be one in substance \vith Him ? for God attached not
MeDecr.to Him the Son from without1, as needing a servant; nor are
p. 14^" tne works on a level with the Creator, and are honoured as
noteb. pje is? or to be thought one with the Father. Or let a man
venture to make the distinction, that the sun and the radiance
are two lights, or different substances; or to say that the
radiance accrued to it over and above, and is not a single
8 tt/as ovres tfiuvs Otorvros', the word and hypostasis, are all synonymous, i. e.
i"Saj, face or countenance, will come as one and all denoting the Una Res,
before us in Orat. iii. 16. It is generally which is Almighty God. They differed,
applied to the Son, as in what follows, in that the word hypostasis regards the
and is synonymous with hypostasis; One God as He is the Son. The ap-
but it is remarkable that here it is parent confusion is useful then as re-
almost synonymous with outrtot, or 0iW. minding us of this great truth ; vid. the
Indeed in one sense nature, substance, next note.
as the sun and radiance not tivo lights.
155
and uncompounded offspring from the sun; such, that sun and CHAP.
radiance are two, but the light one, because the radiance is an —
offspring from the Sun. But, whereas not more divisible, nay
less divisible is the nature f of the Son towards the Father, and
the godhead not accruing to the Son, but the Father's god-
head being in the Son, so that he that hath seen the Son hath
seen the Father in Him ; wherefore should not such a one
be called One in substance ?
25. Even this is sufficient to dissuade you from blaming those §. 53.
who have said that the Son was one in substance with the Father
and yet let us examine the very term " One in substance," in
itself, by way of seeing whether we ought to use it at all, and
whether it be a proper term, and is suitable to apply to the Son.
For you know yourselves, and no one can dispute it, that
Like is not predicated of substances, but of habits, and V
qualities ; for in the case of substances we speak, not of like-
ness, but of identity g. Man, for instance, is said to be like
f Qvfts, nature, is here used for person.
This seems an Alexandrian use of the
word. It is found in Alexander, ap.
Theod Hist. i. 3. p. 740. And it gives
rise to a celebrated question in the
Monophysite controversy, as used in S.
Cyril's phrase ptict Qufi; ffitrtt^xuiu.^)) .
S. Cyril uses the word both for person
and for substance successively in the
following passage. " Perhaps some one
will say, ' How is the Holy and Adorable
Trinity distinguished into three Hypo-
stases, yet issues in one nature of
Godhead ?' Because the Same in
substance necessarily following the
difference of natures, recals the minds
of believers to one nature of Godhead."
contr. Nest. iii. p. 91. In this pas-
sage " One nature" stands for a reality;
but " three Natures" is the One Eternal
Divine Nature viewed in that respect
in which He is Three. And so S. Hilary,
naturse ex natura gignente nativitas;
de Syn. 17. and essentia de essen-
tia, August de Trin. vii. n. 3 and de
seipso genuit Deus id quod est, de
Fid. et Symb. 4. i. e. He is the Ador-
able fioTfit or Godhead viewed as begot-
ten. And Athan. Orat. iv. $. 1. calls the
Father \^ ova-ias ov/n^vs. vid. supr. p. 148.
ref. 4. These phrases mean that the Son
who is the Divine Substance, is from the
Fathem'/?0?'s the [same] divine substance.
As, (to speak of what is analogous not
parallel;) we might say that " man is
father of man," not meaning by man
the same individual in both cases, but
the same nature, so here we speak not
of the same Person in the two cases,
but the same Individuum. All these
expressions resolve themselves into the
original mystery of the Holy Trinity, that
Person and Individuum are not equiva-
lent terms, and we understand them nei-
ther more nor less than we understand it.
In like manner as regards the incarna-
tion, when St. Paul says " God was in
Christ;" he does not mean absolutely
the Divine Nature, which is the proper
sense of the word, but the Divine Na-
ture as existing in the Person of the
Son. Hence too, (vid. Petav. de Trin.
vi. 10. §. 6.) such phrases as " the Fa-
ther begat the Son from His substance."
And in like manner Athan. just after-
wards, speaks of " the Father's God-
head being mthe Son." vid. supr. p. 145,
note r.
g S. Athanasius, in saying that like
is not used of substance, implies that
the proper Arian senses of the opatot are
more natural, and therefore the more pro-
bable, if the word came into use. These
were, 1 .likeness in will and action, <isfufi-
qtuvia ofwhichinfr.0rat.iii.il. 2. likeness
to the idea in God's mind in which the
Son was created. Cyril Thesaur. p. 1 34.
3. likeness to the divine act or energy by
which He was created. Pseudo-Basil,
contr. Eun.iv. p. 282. Cyril in Joan. c.5.
156 If we believe the Nicene sense, let us accept the words.
CouNc.man, not in substance, but according to habit and character;
j^JJJ ' for in substance men are one in nature. And again, man is
SELEU. not said to be unlike dog, but to be other in nature. There-
fore, in speaking of Like according to substance, we mean like
lftir«ufict by participation * ; (for Likeness is a quality, which may attach
to substance,) and this is proper to creatures, for they, by par-
2 t*i*»M taking2, are made like to God. For when He shall appear,
3, 2. says Scripture, we shall be like Him ; like, that is, not in
substance but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him.
^trovctee. If then ye speak of the Son as being by participation 3, then
indeed call Him Like in substance ; but thus spoken of, He
is not Truth, nor Light at all, nor in nature God. For things
which are from participation, are called like, not in reality,
but from resemblance to reality ; so that they may fail, or be
taken from those who share them. And this, again, is proper
to creatures and works. Therefore, if this be extravagant, He
must be, not by participation, but in nature and truth Son,
Light, Wisdom, God; and being by nature, and not by
sharing, He would properly be called, not Like in sub-
stance, but One in substance. But what would not be
asserted, even in the case of others, (for the Like has been
shewn to be inapplicable to substance,) is it not folly, not
to say violence, to put forward in the case of the Son, instead
of the " One in substance ?"
§. 54. 26. This justifies the Nicene Council, wh'ch has laid down,
what it was becoming to express, that the Son, begotten from
the Father's substance, is one in substance with Him. And
if we too have been taught the same thing, let us not fight
with shadows, especially as knowing, that they who have so
defined, have made this confession of faith, not to misrepresent
the truth, but as vindicating the truth and religiousness towards
Christ, and also as destroying the blasphemies against Him of
4 p. 91, the Ario-maniacs 4. For this must be considered and noted
carefully, that, in using unlike in substance, and other in
substance, we signify not the true Son, but some one of the
creatures, and an introduced and adopted Son, which pleases
the heretics ; but when we speak un controversially of the One
iii.p. 304. 4. \\^Q according to the Sci'ip- which was, as they understood it, an
tures ; which of course was but an eva- evasion also,
sion. 6. like in all things, ***«,
Exhortation to maintain the truth and live in unity. 157
in substance, we signify a genuine Son born of the Father ; CHAP.
though at this Christ's enemies often burst with rage1. l -
27. What then I have learned myself, and have heard men note l/
of judgment say, I have written in few words; but ye re-
maining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast
the traditions of the Fathers, pray that now at length all
strife and rivalry may cease, and the futile questions of the
heretics may be condemned, and all logomachy h ; and the
guilty and murderous heresy of the Arians may disappear,
and the truth may shine again in the hearts of all, so that all
every where may say the same thing, and think the same
thing ! ; and that, no Arian contumelies remaining, it may be
said and confessed in every Church, One Lord, one faith,
baptism, in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the
Father be the glory and the strength, unto ages of ages.
Amen.
& And so <ra.7s *.o>yofAa%iais. Basil de
Sp. S. n. 16. It is used with an allusion
to the fight against the Word,
r»ftct%t7v and 4ia/At>t%t7v. Thus
%tiv ftt*.tr$ffetvrts , xtti Keif
fict%ouvTts, Iffovrtti (ttr oX/y«v vix^ai rn
K^ayitf. Scrap, iv. 1.
1 This sentiment will give opportu-
nity for a note on the Semi-arians,
which has been omitted in its proper
place, $.41and43.vid. p. 141 . ref.4. There
S. Athanasius calls certain of them
"brethren" and " beloved," Kyonrwroi.
S. Hilary too calls them " sanctissimi
viri." de Syn. 80. On the other hand,
Athan. speaks severely of Eustathius and
Basil. Ep. JEg. 7. and Hilary explains
himself inhis notes upon his de Syn. from
which it appears that he had been ex-
postulated with on his conciliatory
tone. Indeed all throughout he had
betrayed a consciousness that he should
offend some parties, e. g. §. 6. In
§. 77, he had spoken of " having ex-
pounded the faithful and religious sense
of' like in substance,' which is called
Homoeusion." On this he observes,
note 3, " I think no one need be
asked to consider why I have said in
this place ' religious sense of like in
substance,' except that I meant that
there was also an irreligious ; and that
therefore I said that ' like' was not only
equal but the ' same.' vid. p. 139, note
1. In the next note he speaks of
them as not more than hopeful. Still
it should be observed how careful the
Fathers of the day were not to mix up
the question of doctrine, which rested
on Catholic tradition with that of the
adoption of a certain term which rested
on a Catholic injunction. Not that the
term was not in duty to be received,
but it was to be received on account of
its Catholic sense, and where the Ca-
tholic sense was held, the word might
even by a sort of dispensation be waived.
It is remarkable that Athanasius
scarcely mentioned the word " One
in substance" in his Orations or Dis-
courses which are to follow ; nor does
it occur in S. Cyril's Catecheses, of
whom, as being suspected of Semi-
arianism, it might have been required,
before his writings were received as of
authority. The word was not imposed
upon Ursacius and Valens, A.D. 349.
by Pope Julius ; nor in the Council of
Aquileia in 381, was it offered by St.
Ambrose to Palladius andSecundianus.
S. Jerome's account of the apology
made by the Fathers of Ariminum is of
the same kind. " We thought," they
said, " the sense corresponded to the
words, nor in the Church of God, where
there is simplicity, and a pure confes-
sion, did we fear that one thing would
be concealed in the heart, another
uttered by the lips. We were deceived
by our good opinion of the bad." ad
Lucif. 19.
158 Letter of Cons tan this to the Council of Ariminum.
COUNC.
ARIM. Postscript.
AND
SELEU. 28. After I had written my account of the Council l, I had
§• 55- information that the most irreligious2 Constantius had sent
J QQ
note h.' Letters to the Bishops remaining in Ariminum ; and T have
3 P- 90> taken pains to get copies of them from true brethren and to
send them to you, and also what the Bishops answered ; that
you may know the irreligious craft of the Emperor, and the
firm and unswerving purpose of the Bishops towards the
truth.
Interpretation of the Letter*.
Constantius, Victorious and Triumphant, Augustus, to all Bishops
who are assembled at Ariminum.
That the divine and adorable Law is our chief care, your excel-
lencies are not ignorant ; but as yet we have been unable to receive
the twenty Bishops sent by your wisdom, and charged with the
legation from you, for we are pressed by a necessary expedition
against the Barbarians ; and as ye know, it beseems to have the
soul clear from every care, when one handles the matters of the
Divine Law. Therefore we have ordered the Bishops to await
our return at Adrianople ; that, when all public affairs are well-
arranged, then at length we may hear and weigh their sug-
gestions. Let it not then be grievous to your constancy to await
their return, that, when they come back with our answer to you,
ye may be able to bring matters to a close which so deeply affect
the well-being of the Catholic Church.
29. This was what the Bishops received at the hands of
three messengers.
Reply of the Bishops.
The letter of your humanity we have received, most religious
Lord Emperor, which reports that, on account of stress of public
affairs, as yet you have been unable to attend to our legates ; and
in which you command us to await their return, until your godli-
ness shall be advised by them of what we have defined conformably
to our ancestors. H o wever, we now profess and aver at once by these
presents, that we shall not recede from our purpose, as we also in-
structed our legates. We ask then that you will with serene counte-
nance command these letters of our mediocrity to be read before
you ; as well as will graciously receive those, with which we
charged our legates. This however your gentleness compre-
hends as well as we, that great grief and sadness at present
k These two Letters are both in Socr. ii. 15. p. 878. in a different version
ii. 37. And the latter is in Theod. Hist, from the Latin original.
Letter of the Council of Ariminum to Constantius. 159
prevail, because that, in these your most happy days, so many CHAP.
Churches are without Bishops. And on this account \ve again HI.
request your humanity, most religious Lord Emperor, that, if
it please your religiousness, you would command us, before the
severe winter weather sets in, to return to our Churches, that so
we may be able, unto God Almighty and our Lord and Saviour
Christ, His Only-begotten Son, to fulfil together with our flocks
our wonted prayers in behalf of your imperial sway, as indeed
we have ever performed them, and at this time make them.
NOTE on Chapter II.
Concerning the Confessions at Sir-miiim.
NOTE IT has been thought advisable to draw up, as carefully as may
ON be, a statement of the various Arian Confessions which issued at
COUNC. Sirmjunij with the hope of presenting to the reader in a compen-
A^D*' dious form an intricate passage of history.
SELEU.
1. A. D. 351. Confession against Photinus f
(First Sirmian. snpr. p. 118.)
This Confession was published at a Council of Eastern Bisho^
(Coustant in Hil. p. 1 174, note 1,) and was drawn up by the whole
body, Hil. de Syn. 37- (according to Sirmond. Diatr. 1. Sirm. p.
366. Petavius de Trin. 1. 9. §. 8. Animadv. in Epiph. p. 318 init.
and Coustant. in Hil. 1. c.) or by Basil of Ancyra (as Valesius con-
jectures in Soz. iv. 22. and Larroquanus, de Liberio, p. 147.) or
by Mark of Arethusa, Socr. ii. 30. but he confuses together the
dates of the different Confessions, and this is part of his mistake,
(vid. Vales, in loc. Coustant. in Hil. de Syn. 1. c. Petav. Animad.
in Epiph. 1. c.) It was written in Greek.
Till Petavius a, Socrates was generally followed in ascribing all
three Sirmian Confessions to this one Council, though at the same
time he was generally considered mistaken as to the year. E. g.
Baronius places them all in 357- Sirmond defended Baronius
against Petavius ; (though in Facund. x. 6. note c, he agrees
with Petavius,) and assigning the third Confession to 359,
adopted the improbable conjecture of two Councils, the one
Catholic and the other Arian, held at Sirmium at the same time,
putting forth respectively the first and second Creeds somewhat
after the manner of the contemporary rival Councils of Sardica.
Pagi, Natalis Alexander, Valesius, de Marca, Tillemont, S.Basnage,
Montfaucon, Coustant, Larroquanus (dela Roque,) agree with Pe-
tavius in placing the Council at which Photinus was deposed, and
the Confession published by it, in A. D. 351. Mansi dates it
at 358.
n Dicam non jactantise causa, sed ut precabor, quin id vanissime a me dictum
eruditi lectoris studium excitem, for- omnes arbitrentur. Petav. Animadv. in
tassis audacius, ab hinc mille ac ducen- Epiph. p. 306. Nos ex antiquis patri-
tis propemodum annis liquidam ac sin- bus primum illud odorati sumus, tres
ceram illorum rationem ignoratam fu- omnino conventus Episcoporum eodem
isse. Quod nisi certissimis argumentis in Sirmiensi oppido, non iisdem tempo-
indiciisque monstravero, nihil ego de- ribns celebrates fuisse. ibid. p. 113.
Sirmian Confessions. 161
This was the Confession which Pope Liberius signed according NOTE
to Baronius, N.Alexander, and Constant in Hil. note n. p. 1335-7, L
and as Tillemont thinks probable.
In p. 114, note b. supr. the successive condemnations of Pho- C^^'
tinns are enumerated; but as this is an intricate point on which AND *
there is considerable difference of opinion among critics, it may be SELEU.
advisable to state them here, as they are determined by various
Writers.
Petavius, (de Photino Hseretico, 1.) enumerates in all five Coun-
cils:— 1. at Constantinople, A.D. 336, when Marcellus was de-
posed, vid. supr. p. 109, note m. (where for " same" year, read
" next" year.) 2. At Sardica, A.D. 347- 3. At Milan, A.D. 347-
4. At Sirmium, 34-9. 5. At Sirmium, when he was deposed,
A.D. 351. Of these the 4th and 5th were first brought to light
by Petavius, who omits mention of the Macrostich in 345.
Petavius is followed by Natalis Alexander, Montfaucon, (vit
Athan.) and Tillemont; and by De Marca, (Diss. de temp. Syn.
Sirm.) and S. Basnage, (Annales,) and Valesius, (in Theod. Hist.
11. 16. p. 23. Socr. ii. 20.) as regards the Council of Milan, except
that Valesius places it with Sirmond in 346 ; but for the Council
of Sirmium in 349, they substitute a Council of Rome of the same
date, while de Marca considers Photinus condemned again in the
Eusebian Council of Milan in 355. De la Roque, on the other
hand, (Larroquan. Dissert, de Photino Haer.) considers that Pho-
tinus was condemned, 1. in the Macrostich, 344 [345]. 2. at
Sardica, 347. 3. at Milan, 348. 4. at Sirmium, 350. 5. at Sirmium,
351.
Petavius seems to stand alone in assigning to the Council of
Constantinople, 336, his first condemnation.
2. A.D. 357. The Blasphemy of Potamius and Hosius,
(Second Sirmian. supr. p. 122.)
Hilary calls it by the above title, de Syn. 11. vid. also Soz.
iv. 12. p. 554. He seems also to mean it by the blasphemia
Ursacii et Valentis, contr. Const. 26.
This Confession was the first overt act of disunion between
Arians and Semi-Arians.
Sirmond, de Marca and Valesius, (in Socr. ii. 30,) after Pha?-
badius, think it put forth by a Council; rather, at a Conference
of a few leading Arians about Constantius, who seems to have
been present; e. g. Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius. Soz. iv.
12. Vid. also Hil. Fragm. vi. 7-
It was written in Latin, Socr. ii. 30. Potamius wrote very
barbarous Latin, judging from the Tract ascribed to him in
Dacher. Spicileg. t. 3. p. 299, unless it be a translation from the
Greek, vid. also Galland. Bibl. t. v. p. 96. Petavius thinks the
Creed not written, but merely subscribed by Potamius. de Trin.
i. 9. §. 8. and Coustant. in Hil. p. 1155, note f, that it was written
by Ursacius, Valens, and Potamius. It is remarkable that the
Greek in Athanasius is clearer than the original.
This at first sight is the Creed which Liberius signed, because
M
162 tiirmian Confessions.
NOTE S. Hilary speaks of the latter as " perfidia Ariana," Fragm. 6.
I- Blondel, (Prim, dans 1'Eglise, p. 484.) Larroquanus, &c. are of this
opinion. And the Roman Breviary, Ed. Ven. 1482,, and Ed.
Par. 1543, in the Service for S. Eusebius of Rome, August. 14.
says that " Pope Liberius consented to the Arian misbelief,"
Launnoi. Ep. v. 9. c. 13. Auxilius says the same, ibid. vi. 14.
Animadv. 5. n. 18. Petavius grants that it must be this, if any
of the three Sirmian, (Animadv. in Epiph. p. 31 6,) but we shall
see his own opinion presently.
,
3. A.D. 367. The foregoing interpolated.
A creed was sent into the East in Hosius's name, Epiph. H
73. 14. Soz. iv. 15. p. 558, of an Anomosan character, which t
" blasphemia" was not. And S. Hilary may allude to this when
he speaks of the " deliramenta Osii, et incrementa Ursacii et
Valentis," contr. Const. 23. An Anomoean Council of Antioch
under Eudoxius of this date, makes acknowledgments to Ursacius,
Valens, and Germinius. Soz. iv. 12 fin. as being agents in the
Arianising of the West.
Petavius and Tillemont considers this Confession to be the
" blasphemia" interpolated. Petavius throws out a further con-
jecture, which seems gratuitous, that the whole of the latter part
of the Creed is a later addition, and that Liberius only signed the
former part. Animadv. in Epiph. p. 31 6.
4. A.D. 358. The Ancyrene Anathemas.
The Semi- Arian party had met in Council at Ancyra in the early
spring of 358 to protest against the " blasphemia," and that with
some kind of correspondence with the Gallic Bishops who had
just condemned it, Phaebadius of Agen writing a Tract against it,
which is still extant. They had drawn up and signed, besides, a
Synodal Letter, eighteen anathemas, the last against the " One in
substance." These, except the last, or the last six, they submitted
at the end of May to the Emperor who was again at Sirmium.
Basil, Eustathius, Eleusius, and another formed the deputation;
and their influence persuaded Constantius to accept the Ana-
themas, and even to oblige the party of Valens, at whose " blas-
phemia" they were levelled, to recant and subscribe them.
5. A.D. 358. Semi- Arian Digest of Three Confessions.
The Semi- Arian Bishops, pursuing their advantage, composed
a Creed out of three, that of the Dedication, the first Sirmian, and
the Creed of Antioch against Paul 264 — 270, in which the " One
in substance" is said to have been omitted or forbidden. Soz. iv.
15. This Confession was imposed by Imperial authority on the
Arian party, who signed it. So did Liberius, Soz. ibid. Hil. Fragm.
vi. 6. 7; and Petavius considers that this is the subscription by
which he lapsed, de Trin. i. 9- §• 5. Animadv. in Epiph. p. 316.
and S. Basnage, in Ann. 358. 13.
It is a point of controversy whether or not the Arians at this
time suppressed the " blasphemia." Socrates and Sozomen say
Sirmian Confessions. 163
that they made an attempt to recall the copies they had issued, NOTE
and even obtained an edict from the Emperor for this purpose, I.
but without avail. Socr. ii. 30 fin. Soz. iv. 6. p. 543. ON
Athanasius, on the other hand, as we have seen, supr. p. 123, £nuu
relates this in substance of the third Confession of Sirmium, not AND '
of the " blasphemia" or second. SELEU.
Tillemont follows Socrates and Sozomen ; considering that
Basil's influence with the Emperor enabled him now to insist on
a retractation of the " blasphemia." And he argues that Germi-
nius in 366, being suspected of orthodoxy, and obliged to make
profession of heresy, was referred by his party to the formulary
of Ariminum, no notice being taken of the " blasphemia," which
looks as if it were suppressed ; whereas Germinius himself appeals
to the third Sirmian, which is a proof that it was not suppressed.
Hil. Fragm. 15. Coustant. in Hil. contr. Const. 26, though he
does not adopt the opinion himself, observes, that the charge
brought against Basil, Soz. iv. 132. Hil. 1. c. by the Acacians of
persuading the Africans against the second Sirmian is an evi-
dence of a great effort on his part at a time when he had the
Court with him to suppress it. We have just seen Basil uniting
with the Gallic Bishops against it.
6. A.D. 359. The Confession with a date,
(third Sirmian, supr. p. 83.)
The Semi-Arians, with the hope of striking a further blow at
their opponents by a judgment against the Anomosans, Soz. iv. 16
init. seem to have suggested a general Council, which ultimately
became the Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum. If this was their
measure, they were singularly out-manoeuvred by the party of
Acacius and Valens, as we have seen in Athanasius's work. A pre-
paratory Conference was held at Sirmium at the end of May in this
year ; in which the Creed was determined which should be laid
before the great Councils which were assembling. Basil and Mark
were the chief Semi-Arians present, and in the event became com-
mitted to an almost Arian Confession. Soz. iv. 16. p. 562. It was
finally settled on the Eve of Pentecost, and the dispute lasted till
morning. Epiph. Hser. 73. 22. Mark at length was chosen to
draw it up, Soz. iv. 22. p. 573. yet Valens so managed that Basil
could not sign it without an explanation. It was written in
Latin, Socr. ii. 30. Soz. iv. 17. p. 563. Coustant, however, in
Hil. p. 1152, note i, seems to consider this dispute and Mark's
confession to belong to the same date (May 22,) in the foregoing
year; but p. 1363, note b, to change his opinion.
Petavius,who, Animadv.mEpiph.p.318,follows Socratesin con-
sidering that the second Sirmian is the Confession which the Arians
tried to suppress, nevertheless, de Trin. i. 9- §• 8. yields to the testi-
mony of Athanasius in behalf of the third, attributing the measure to
their dissatisfaction with the phrase " Like in all things," which
Constantius had inserted, and with Basil's explanation on sub-
scribing it, and to the hopes of publishing a bolder creed which
their increasing influence with Constantius inspired. He does
M 2
164 Sirmian Confessions.
NOTE not think it impossible, however, that an attempt was made to
I. suppress both. Constant, again, in Hil. p. 1363, note b, asks when
c ° it could be that the Eusebians attempted to suppress the second
ARIM° Confession; and conjectures that the ridicule which followed
AND' their dating of the third and their wish to get rid of the " Like in
SELEU. all things," were the causes of their anxiety about it. He observes
~~ too with considerable speciousness that Acacius's second formu-
lary at Seleucia (Confession ixth, supr. p. 123.) and the Confession
of Nice (xth, supr. p. 125.) resemble second editions of the third
Sirmian. Valesius in Socr. ii. 30. and Montfaucon in Athan. Syn.
§. 29. take the same side.
Pagi in Ann. 357 • n. 13. supposes that the third Sirmian was
the Creed signed by Liberius. Yet Constant, in Hil. p. 1335,
note n, speaking of Liberius's, " perfidia Ariana," as S. Hilary calls
it, says, " Solus Valesius existimat tertiam fconfessionem] hie
memorari:" whereas Valesius, making four, not to say five, Sirmian
Creeds, understands Liberius to have signed, not the third,
but an intermediate one, between the second and third, as Peta-
vius does, in Soz. iv. 15 and 16. Moreover, Pagi fixes the date as
A. D. 358. ibid.
This Creed, thus drawn up by a Semi-Arian, with an Acacian or
Arian appendix, then a Semi-Arian insertion, and after all a Semi-
Arian protest on subscription, was proposed at Seleucia by
Acacius, Soz. iv. 22. and at Ariminum by Valens, Socr. ii. 37-
p. 132.
7. A.D. 359. Nicene Edition of the third Sirmian,
{Tenth Confession, supr. p. 125.)
The third Sirmian was rejected both at Seleucia and Ariminum;
but the Eusebians, dissolving the Council of Seleucia, kept the
Fathers at Ariminum together through the summer and autumn.
Meanwhile at Nice in Thrace they confirmed the third Sirmian,
Socr. ii. 37. p. 141. Theod. Hist, ii. 16. with the additional
proscription of the word hypostasis ; apparently lest the Latins
should by means of it evade the condemnation of the " One in
substance." This Creed, thus altered, was ultimately accepted at
Ariminum; and was confirmed in January 360 at Constantinople;
Socr. ii. 41. p. 153. Soz. iv. 24 init.
Liberius retrieved his fault on this occasion ; for, whatever was
the confession he had signed, he now refused his assent to the
Ariminian, and, if Socrates is to be trusted, was banished in con-
sequence, Socr. ii. 37. p. 140.
NOTE on Page 147.
On the alleged Confession of Antioch against Paul of
Samosata.
A number of learned writers have questioned the fact, testified NOTE
by three Fathers, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, and S. Hilary, of the II.
rejection of the word opoovruv in the Antiochene Council against ON
Paul between A.D. 264—270. It must be confessed that both S. °^C<
Athanasius and S. Hilary speak from the statements of the Semi- AND *
arians, without having seen the document which the latter had SELEU.
alleged, while S. Basil who speaks for certain lived later. It must ..
also be confessed, that S. Hilary differs from the two other Fathers
in the reason he gives for the rejection of the word. There is,
however, a further argument urged against the testimony of the
three Fathers of a different kind. A Creed, containing the word,
is found in the acts of the Council of Ephesus 431, purporting to
be a Definition of faith ''of the Nicene Council, touching the
Incarnation, and an Exposition against Paul of Samosata." This
Creed, which, (it is supposed,) is by mistake referred to the Nicene
Council, is admitted as genuine by Baronius, J. Forbes, Instr. Hist.
Theol. i. 4. §. 1. Le Moyne, Var. Sacr. t. 2. p. 255. Wormius, Hist.
Sabell. p. 116—119. (vicl. Routh Hell. t. 2. p. 523.) Simon de
Magistris, Praef. ad Dionys. Alex. p. xl. Feverlin. Diss. de P. Samos.
§. 9. Molkenbuhr, Dissert. Crit. 4. Kern, Disqu. Hist. Crit. on the
subject; Dr. Burton in Faber's Apostolicity of Trinitarianism,
vol. ii. p. 302. and Mr. Faber himself. As, however, I cannot but
agree with the President of Magdalen 1. c. that the Creed is of a
later date, (in his opinion, post lites exortas Nestorianas,) or at least
long after the time of Paul of Samosata, 1 will here set down one
or two peculiarities in it which make me think so.
The Creed is found in Harduin Concil. t. 1. p. 1640. Routh,
Rell. t. 2. p. 524. Dionys. Alex. Oper. Rom. 1696 [1796]. p. 289.
Burton, Testimonies, p. 397 — 399- Faber, Trinitarianism, vol. 2.
p. 287.
1. Now first, the Creed in question has these words : oAo» ouoovrtov
fata Kott (Air» TOV <r&>pxTO<;} «AX' ov^i KXTO. TO (rupee, opoovnov r£) hot. Now
to enter upon the use of the word opoovnov, as applied to the Holy
Trinity, would be foreign to my subject ; and to refer to the
testimony of the three Fathers, would be assuming the point at
issue ; but still there are other external considerations besides,
which may well be taken into account.
(1) And first the Fathers speak of it as a new term, i. e in
Creeds, " To meet the irreligion of the Arian heretics, the Fathers
framed the new name Homoiision." August, in Joann. 97. n. 4. He
says that it was misunderstood at Ariminum " propter novitatem
verbi." contr. Maxim, ii. 3. though it was the legitimate " off-
spring of the ancient faith." Vigilius also says, " an ancient
166 A lleged Confession of Ant ioch
NOTE subject received the new name Homolision." Disp. Ath. et Ar. t. v.
II. p. 695. (the paging wrong.) Bibl. P. Col. 1618. vid. Le Moyne.
ON Var. Sacr. 1. c.
ARIM!' (2) ^ext Sozornen informs us, Hist. iv. 15. (as we have seen
AND ' above, p. 162.) that the Creed against Paul was used by the Semi-
SELEU. arians at Sirmium, A.D. 358, in order to the composition of the
""Confession which Liberius signed. Certainly then, if this be so,
we cannot suspect it of containing the opoovnov.
(3) Again, we have the evidence of the Semi-arians themselves to
the same point in the documents which Epiphanius has preserved,
Haer. 73. They there appeal to the Council against Paul as an
authority for the use of the word wri*, and thereby to justify their
own opoiovnov; which they would hardly have done, if that Council
had sanctioned the yutiHrw as well as ova-lot,. But moreover, as we
have seen, supr. p. 162. the last Canon of their Council of Ancyra
actually pronounced anathema upon the opoovnov ; but if so, with
what face could they appeal to a Council which made profession
of it?
(4) And there is nothing improbable in the Antiochene Council
having suppressed or disowned it; on the contrary, under their
circumstances it was almost to be expected. The Fathers con-
cerned in the first proceedings against Paul, Dionysius, Gregory of
Neocaesarea, Athenodorus, and perhaps Firmilian, were immediate
disciples of Origen, who is known to have been very jealous of
the corporeal ideas concerning the Divine Nature which Paul (ac-
cording to Athanasius and Basil) imputed to the word opoovriov.
There were others of the Fathers who are known to have used
language of a material cast, and from them he pointedly differs.
Tertullian speaks of the Divine Substance as a corpus, in Prax.
7« and he adopts the Valentinian word K^ofioXy), as Justin had used
-x^ofiXy&lv yMvpx,, (vid. supr. p. 97, note h.) whereas Origen in
his controversy with Candidus, who was of that heresy, condemns
it ; and he speaks in strong language against the work of Melito
of Sardis, TT^I ivrupdrov 6tov, in Genes. Fragm. t. 2. p. 25. whom he
accuses of teaching it. vid. also de Orat. 23. His love of Pla-
tonism would tend the same way, for the Platonists, in order to
mark their idea of the perfection and simplicity of the Divine
Nature, were accustomed to consider It "above substance."
Thus Plotinus calls the Divine Being the " origin of being and
more excellent than substance." 5 Ennead v. 11. and says that He
" transcends all, and is the cause of them, but is not they." ibid,
c. ult. The views of physical necessity too, which the material
system involved, led him to speak of His energy and will being
His substance. 6 Enn. viii. 13. And hence Origen; " Nor doth
God partake of substance, rather He is partaken, than partakes."
contr. Cels. vi. 64. And thus the word VTC^OVTIOV is used by
Pseudo-Dion, de div. nom. i. n. 2. whose Platonic tone of thought
is well known ; as by S. Maximus, " Properly substance is not
predicated of God, for He is vTr&govirtog." in Pseudo-Dion, de div.
nom. v. init. Vid. also Dam. F. O. i. 4. and 8. pp. 137- 147. while
S. Greg. Naz. also speaks of Him as VTT'^ rqv ovriotv. Orat. 6. 12.
Nay further, in Joann. t. 20. 16. Origen goes so far as to object
against Paul of Samosata.
167
to the phrase IK ?%$ ovs-iot$ rov TTXT^ yiytvvticr6ati TOV viov, but Still NOTE
assigning the reason that such a phrase introduced the notion of a II.
s, or the like corporeal notions, into our idea of God.
It is scarcely necessary to add,, that there was no more frequent
charge against the opjtovno* in the mouths of the Arians, AND
than that it involved the Gnostic and Manichaean doctrine of SELEU.
materiality in the Divine Nature, vid. supr. p. J 7, note 1. p. 63, ~
note h.
Again we know also that S. Dionysius did at first decline or at
least shrink from the word opoovcnoy, accepting it only when the
Bishop of Rome urged it upon him. But an additional reason
for such reluctance is found in the rise of Manicheism just in the
time of these Councils against Paul, a heresy which adopted the
word ofttovnov in its view of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity,
and that in a material sense; so that the very circumstances of
the case exactly fall in with and bear out the account of their
rejection of the word given by the two Fathers.
(5) Nor is there any thing in S. Hilary's reason for it incon-
sistent with the testimony of S. Athanasius and S. Basil. Both
accounts may be true at once. The philosophical sense of ovrloc,,
as we have seen, supr. p. 152, note a, was that of an individual or
unit. When then the word opoovwog was applied to the Second Per-
son in the Blessed Trinity, or He was said to be of one sub stance with
the Father, such a doctrine, to those who admitted of no mystery
in the subject, involved one of two errors, according as the «tW«
was considered a spiritual substance or a material. Either it implied
that the Son of God was a part of God, or p^o$ opoovo-iov, which was
the Manichrean doctrine ; or if the wrl* were immaterial, then, since
it denoted an individual being, the phrase " one in substance"
involved Sabellianism. Paul then might very naturally have urged
this dilemma upon the Council, and said, " Your doctrine implies
the ofitwirtiv., which is Manichaean, unless it be taken, as 1 am
willing to take it, in a Sabellian sense." And thus it might be at
once true as Athanasius says, that Paul objected, " Unless Christ
has of man become God, it follows that He is One in substance
with the Father; and if so, of necessity there are three sub-
stances, &c." supr. §. 45. and also, according to Hilary's testimony,
" Homoiision Samosatenus confessus est ; sed nunquid melius
Ariani negaverunt?" de Syn. 86.
2, The Creed also says, (MTU, T« 0ioT»jTe$ av
*>t*iv.
There are strong reasons for saying that the phrase o
is of a date far later than the Council of Antioch.
(1) Waterland considers the omission of the phrase in the
Athanasian Creed as an argument that it was written not lower
than Eutychian times," A.D. 451. "A tenet," he observes of it,
" expressly held by some of the ecclesiastical writers before
Eutyches's time, but seldom or never omitted in the Creeds or
Confessions about that time, or after. To be convinced," he
proceeds, " of the truth of this .... article, one need but look
into the Creeds and Formularies of those times, viz. into that of
168 Alleged Confession of Ant loch
NOTE Turribius of Spain in 447, of Flavian of Constantinople, as also
H- of Pope Leo in 449, of the Chalcedon Council in 451, of Pope
C OINc Felix m m ^5, and Anastasius II in 496, and of the Church of
A HIM. Alexandria in the same year ; as also into those of Pope Hormisdas,
AND and the Churches of Syria, and Fulgentius, and the Emperor
SELEU. Justinian, and Pope John II, and Pope Pelagius I, within the
~ Cth century. In all which we shall find either express denial of
one nature, or express affirmation of two natures, or the doctrine of
Christ's consubslantiality with us, or all three together, though they
arc all omitted in the Athanasian Creed." vol. iv. p. 247.
(2) The very fact of Eutyches denying it seems to shew that
the phrase was not familiar, or at least generally received, in the
Church before. " Up to this day," he says in the Council of
Constantinople, A.D. 448, " I have never said that the Body of
our Lord and God was consubstantial with us, but I confess that
the Holy Virgin was consubstantial with us, and that our God
was incarnate of her." Cone. t. 2. p, 164, 5. The point at issue,
as in other controversies, seems to have been the reception or re-
jection of a phrase, which on the one hand was as yet but in local
or private use, and on the other was well adapted to exclude the
nascent heresy. The Eutychians denied in like manner the word
<pvr<?, which, it must be confessed, was seldom used till their date,
when the doctrine it expressed came into dispute. And so of the
phrase cpoovntv tS TTXT^I, and of vTrotrreca-i? ; vid. Note, supr. p. 7L
Now the phrase " consubstantial with us" seems to have been in-
troduced at the time of the Apollinarian controversy, and was natu-
rally the Catholic counter-statement to the doctrine of Apollinaris
that Christ's body was ef consubstantial to the Godhead;" a doctrine
which, as Athanasius tells us, ad Epict. 2. was new to the world
when the Apollinarians brought it forward, and, according to
Epiphanius, was soon abandoned by them, Haer. 77, 25. It is
natural then to suppose that the antagonist phrase, which is here in
question, came into use at that date, and continued or was dropped
according to the prevalence of the heretical tenet. Moreover both
sections into which the Apollinarians soon split, seemed to have
agreed to receive the phrase " consubstantial with us," and only
disputed whether it continued to be predicable of our Lord's body
on and after its union with the divine Nature, vid. Leont. de fraud.
Apollin. and this of course would be an additional reason against
the general Catholic adoption of the phrase. It occurs however
in the Creed of John of Antioch, A.D. about 431, on which 8. Cyril
was reconciled to him. Rustic, contr. Aceph. p. 799. but this is
only twenty-one years before the Council of Chalcedon, in which
the phrase was formally received, as the opoowiov ry vary was re-
ceived at Nicsea. ibid. p. 805.
The counter-statement more commonly used by the orthodox to
that of the flesh being opoovo-w Otorwri, was not " consubstantial with
us," but " consubstantial with Mary." S. Amphilochius speaks thus
generally/' It is plain that the holy Fathers said that the Son was
consubstantial with His Father according to the Godhead and con-
substantial with His Mother according to the manhood." apud. Phot.
Bibl. p. 789. Proclus, A.D. 434, uses the word iuAQvto*, and still
against Paul of Samosata. 169
with " the Virgin." TW TTCCT^ Kara TW Otorvrot opoov<ru$, ovrag a ccvrog x.cti NOTE
TJJ grog&tf xxroi rt)v a-d^icoc opo$vXo$. ad Arm. p. 6l 8. circ. init. vid. also II.
p. 613 fin. p. 618. He uses the word opoovtriov frequently of the Divine
Nature as above, yet this does not suggest the other use of it. An-
other term is used by Athanasius, TOP wapwov Tretr^t KCHTO, Trvwpct, ifttv AND
21 x.x,ra, troi^ot. apud Theod. Eranist. ii. p. 139- Or again that He SELEU.
took flesh of Mary, e.g. *vx Ix. Manias #AA' Ix, rn$ IXVTOV ov<rt'ct$ rap*. ~
ad Epict. 2. Or riteiog avfyaTrog, e. g. Procl. ad Arm. p. 613.
which, though Apollinaris denied, Eutyches allowed, Concil. t. 2.
p. 157. Leon. Ep. 21.
However, S. Eustathius (A.D. 325.) says that our Lord's
soul was ToCis •^vfcctig rav ctvfycaKuv oftoovwos, eta-Trig KCCI « <ra,(fe opoov<rio$
T»J ray dvfyayrav <rapc.i. ap. Theod. Eranist. i. p. 56. vid. also Leon.
contr. Nestor, et Eutych. p. 977- and S. Ambrose, ibid. Dial. ii.
p. 139- OftOOVrtOV Tft> TTOiT^l XOtTCC TW QtOTYlTX, KSil OfCOOVrlOV $1*1? XOCTOt T«V
avfyuKorvTot, but the genuineness of the whole extract is extremely
doubtful, as indeed the Benedictines almost grant, t. 2. p. 729.
Waterland, Athan. Creed, ch. 7- p. 264. seems to think the internal
evidence strong against its genuineness, but yields to the ex-
ternal; and Coustant. App. Epist. Pont. Rom. p. 79. considers
Leontius a different author from the Leontius de Sectis., on
account of his mistakes. Another instance is found in Theophilus
ap. Theod. Eranist. ii. p. 154.
This contrast becomes stronger still when we turn to documents
of the alleged date of the Confession. A letter of one of the
Councils 263 — 270, or of some of its Bishops, is still extant, and
exhibits a very different phraseology. Instead of opoounos tjptv we
find the vaguer expressions, not unlike Athanasius, &c. of the Son
" being made flesh and made man," and " the Body from the
Virgin," and " man of the seed of David," and " partaking of flesh
and blood." Routh Rell. t. 2. p. 473. And the use of the word «t/V/«
is different; and its derivatives are taken to convey the idea, neither
of the divine nature of our Lord nor the human, but of the divine
nature substantiated or become a substance, in the material world ;
almost as if under the feeling that God in Himself is above sub-
stance, as I had just now occasion to mention. E. g. Pseudo-
DionysillS asks Trag o VTrlgovoioz Iqrovf ctv&(>M7ro(pvioci$
Myst. Theol. iii. vid. also de Div. Nom. r. 2. and Epist. 4.
Hence Africanus says, ovriecv O'AJJV oiwafais, a,v6(>u7ro<; teyircu.
African. Chron. ap. Routh t. 2. p. 125. In like manner the
Antiochene Fathers insist, xccfo Xg«rroj, iv x.a.1 TO aw «\ TJJ ovo-ix.
Routh Rel. t. 2. p. 474. and Malchion at the same Council
accuses Paul of not admitting cv<ria><r6cti iv TU oA« o-urvgi TO» viov
101 povoytv*. ibid. p. 476. or that the Son was " substantially
present in the whole Saviour." vid. also p. 485. In all these pas-
sages ovo-iee. is used for nothing else than substance, whereas in the
phrase opoovno* iftiv it rather stands for <pv<r^ or ywoq. And so
much was the former its meaning in the earlier times that Hip-
polytus plainly denies that men are one substance one with
another; for he asks, ^CH TrdvTis sv trapoi i<rp,iv X.OCTOI ?w otWflt»; contr.
Noet. 7. And this moreover altogether agrees with what was
said above, that in Paul's argument against the opoovrtov Tcary the
170 Alleged Confession of Ant lock
NOTE word «v<rU was taken (and rightly) in what Aristotle as Anastasius,
II. Hodeg. 6. p. 96. and Theorian Leg. p. 441 . after him, assigns as the
ON proper sense of the word, viz. an individual, and not a common
COUNC nature.
ARIM.
SELEU. 3. The Creed also speaks of our Lord as Vv irgce-»7rov <rvv6trov
" IK fooT»)To$ ov^otiiov xat £»ffW*W*| <ret^x,og.
Now the word crvvdtrov, in the Latin composilum, is found in the
fragment of Malchion's disputation in the Council. Routh Rell.
t. 2. p. 476. But Ti^oo-uTfov and <rvv6tTov iraoru-Trov seem to me of a
later date.
The word persona, applied to our Lord in His two natures and
in contrast with them, is to be found in Tertull. contr. Prax. 27.
Though, however, it was not absolutely unknown to ecclesiastical
authors, this is a very rare instance of its early occurrence.
We also find Novatian de Trin. 21. speaking of the "regula
circa Personam Christi ;" and considering his great resemblance to
Tertullian, it may be supposed that persona here denotes, not
merely our Lord's subsistence in the Holy Trinity, but in His
two natures. But on the other hand, he uses Christus absolutely
for the Second Person all through his Treatise, e.g. 9 init. " Regula
veritatis docetnos credere post patrem etiam in Filium Dei Christum
Jesum, Dominum Deum nostrum, sed Dei filium, &c." .Again,
" Christus habet gloriam ante mundi institutionem. 16. vid. also
13. where he speaks of Christ being made flesh, as if the name
were synonymous with "Word" in the text, John 1, 14. And,
moreover, subsequently to "persona Christi, "he goes on to speak
of " secundam personam post Patrem." 26 and 31. vid. also 27.
However, in spite of these instances, one might seem to say
confidently, if a negative can be proved, that it was not in
common use at soonest before the middle of the fourth century,
and perhaps not till much later.
(1.) I have not discovered it in S. Athanasius's treatises against
Apollinarianism, which were written about 370, except in two
places, which shall be spoken of presently. Nor in S. Gregory
Naz.'s Ep. 202. acl Nectar, and Ep. 101. 102. ad Cledon. Nor in
8. Gregory Nyssen. Fragm. in Apollinarem. Nor in Theodoret's
Eranistes, except in one place, in a Testimony, given to S. Ambrose,
and which has already been mentioned as probably spurious. Nor
is it found in the Creed of Damasus, by whom Apollinaris was
condemned, vid. Epp 2 and 3 ; nor among the testimonies of the
Fathers cited at the Council of Ephesus; nor in Epiphanius's
Creed, Ancor. 121. vid. also 75.
(2.) It is not used in passages where it might have been ex-
pected, but other modes of speech are usual instead ; and that by
a sort of rule, so as to make them almost technical, or with such
variety of expression as pointedly to mark the omission ; e. g.
for "^two natures and one Person" we always find ovx. «AAo, a^o, —
«<«, — Vv, — o etvros. &C. &C.
S. Irenaeus: — Non ergoalterum filium hominisnovitEvangelium.,
nisi hunc qui ex Maria, &c. et eundem hunc passum resurrex-
isse . . . Etsi lingu£ quiclem confitentur unum Jesum Christum,
inxt Paul of Samosata. 171
. . . allerum quidem passum, et natum, £c. et esse alterum eorum, NOTE
&c. Haer. iii. 16. n. 5. 6. unus quidem et idem existens, n. 7. per H.
multa diviclens Filium Dei. n. 8. unnm et eundem, ibid. Si alter ON
. . . alter, . . . quoniam unum eum novit Apostolus, &c. n. 9- The ^^'
passage upon the subject is extended to c. xxiv. AND
S. Ambrose: — Unus in utraque Qdivinitate et carne] lo- SELEU.
quitur Dei Filius ; quia in eodem utraque riatura est ; et si idem ~~
loquitur, non uno semper loquitur modo. de fid. ii. 9. vid. 58.
Non divisus sed unus ; quia utrumque unus, et unus in utroque . . .
non enim alter ex Patre, alter ex Virgine, sed idem aliter ex Pater,
aliter ex Virgine, de Incarn. 35. vid. 47. 75. and Non enim quod
ejusdem substantiae est, unus, sed unum est, 77. where persona
follows of the Holy Trinity.
S. Hilary : — Non alms filins hominis quam qui films Dei est
neque alius in forma Dei quam qui in forma servi perfectus homo
natus est; .... habens in se et totum verumque quod homo est, et
totum verumque quod Deus est. de Trin. x. 19. Cum ipse ille
filius hominis ipse sit qui et films Dei, quia totus hominis filius
totus Dei filius sit, &c. . . . Natus autem est, non ut esset alius
atqite alius, sed ut ante hominem Deus, sucipiens hominem,
homo et Deus possit intelligi. ibid. 22. Non potest . . . ita ab se
dividuus esse, ne Christus sit ; cum non alius Christus, quam qui
in forma Dei, &c. neque alius quam qui natus est, &c. . . . neque alius
quam qui est mortuus, &c in coelis autem non alius sit quam qui
&c. ibid, ut non idem fuerit (/ui et. &c. ibid. 50. Totum ei Deus
Verb urn est, totum ei homo Christus est, . . . nee Christum aliud
credere quam Jesum, nee Jesum aliud praedicare quam Christum.
52.
And in like manner S. Athanasius : — #AAo$, a,xxo$- zrtoog,
wj x,ott eti>iof TxvToy tt3ucjpT»9< Orat. iv. §. 15 and 29- «AAo?, et
§. 30. g'vas KXI *rov OIVTOV. §.31. cv% as rov Ao'yov Wfca^urfAtvov. ibid, roy
7r£«; CX.VTOV hytp'.vTX, a x-ott -/ivca<rx,i TrurT&vlTcii, tAv^wjfov U.TT ctvrov xwptovirt.
ibid. TVV Ct,l>':X.<P^al7[-TC/1 fMWjy, §. 32. TO 6tl6V V» KXt OtTT^OVV fAVTT^plOV. ibid.
TJJV ivaT»Tos. ibid. isAev eti/Tov a,v&^u7rov TE Kotf 6iov Ojitoy. §. 35. vid. espe-
cially the long discussion in Orat. iii. §. 30 — 58. where there is
hardly a technical term.
Other instances of ecclesiastical language are as follows: —
Medium inter Deum ethominum substantiam gerens. Lactant. Instit
iv. 13. teas x.eci xvfy&iTTos rzteios o xvTo$. MelitoH. apud Routh, Rell.
i. p. 115. ex eo quod Deus est, et ex illo quod homo . . . permixtus
et sociatus . . . alterum vident, alterum non vident. Novat. de Trin.
25. vid. also 11, 14, 21, and 24. duos Christos . . . unum, alium.
Pamphil. Apol. ap. Routh, Rell. t. 4. p. 320. 0 xvrog l<m» uii 7rgo$
iccvrov aa-oi.vTcag 'i^av Greg. Nyss. t. 2. p. 696. trot x.a.1 rev xvrov. Greg.
Naz. Ep. 101. p. 85. CJAAO piv *.»} ^AAe to, l|
^l xai ceAAo;. p. 86.
Vid. also Athan. contr. Apollin. i. 10 fin 11. fin. 13, e. 16. b. ii.
1 init. 5. e. 12. e. 18. circ. fin. Theoph. apud Theod. Eranist. ii.
p. 154. Hilar. ibid. p. 162. Attic, ibid. p. 167. Jerom. in Joan.
leros. 35.
A corresponding phraseology and omission of the term " per-
son" is found in the undoubted Epistle of the Antiochetie Fathers;
172 Alleged Confession of Ant loch
NOTE TO IK T?$ 7ret(>6ivov rapa ^a^crenv nav TO itKfiQUfjut T%$ Qtorqro/;
II. rr, OtoryTt ctrptTrras qvaTati x.xt TtdtOTroiwreti' ov %oigiv a eivrbs 6tbs K.OCI a,v-
ON 6^V7T6<; x. T. A. Routh, Rell. t. 2. p. 473. ovru KOU a X£«TTO$ wgo T«$
~5>UNC> o-i«^X(!y<7-e6>j #5 its avop/xa-Toit. xa6o X^nrrot Vv ?c#< TO «0ra <wv TJ? evtrtet. ibid.
AND P- 474. ti tfAAo ^v . . «AAo £g . . . ^vo t>/ov?. ibid. p. 485. And so
SELEU. Malchion, Unus factus est . . . unitate subsistens, &c. ibid. p. 476.
(3) It is indisputable too that the word TF^TUTTOI is from time
to time used of our Lord by the early writers in its ordinary
vague sense, which is inconceivable if it were already received
in creeds as an ecclesiastical symbol.
E. g. S. Clement calls the Son the " person" or countenance,
wgoVwsrov, " of the Father." Strom, v. 6. p. 665. and Psedag. i. 7.
p. 132. vid. also Strom, vii. 10. p. 886. And so lv ir^a-airy -xt&tfa,
Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 22. (vid. supr. p. 114, note d.) and even Cyril
Alex. Dial. v. p. 554. Vid. also Cyril.Catech. xii. 14fin. o
C hry sostom speaks of 2vo 7r£o<r*7rct, i. e. human and divine,
T«V V7ro<r7et<riv, in Hebr. Horn. iii. 1 fin. where too he has just been
speaking against Paul of Samosata, against whom the Creed which
we are examining is alleged to have been written, vid. also Am phi-
loch, ap. Theod. Eranist. i. p. 67. who speaks of Christ as saying,
" My Father is greater than I," " from the flesh and not l» Trgoe-wVov
TK 6toTVTog." In these passages TT^OG-UTTCV seems to stand for character,
as is not unusual in Athanasius, vid. supr. p. 22, note z, where
instances are given. And thus I would explain those passages
referred to just above, in which he seems to use Trgoo-uTrov for
person, in Apoll. ii. 2 and 10. viz. lv Itxi^nt Tr^a-ajruv, which Le
Quien (in Damasc. dialect. 43.) most unnecessarily calls an instance,
and as he thinks solitary, of ^OT-MTTOV being used for nature, though
Athan. in one of the two passages explains the word himself, speak-
ing of K^truTTuv jj ovopdvuv. And this seems a truer explanation, though
perhaps less natural, than to render it (supr. p. 22.) " not as if there
were division of persons." These passages of Athan. might make us
less decisive than Montfaucon as to the internal evidence against
the fragment given in t. i. p. 1294. He says, after Sirmond in
Facund. xi. 2. that it contains a doctrine " ab Athanasian& penitus
abhorrentem;" and this, because the Latin version, (another
reason, but of a different kind, why it is difficult to judge of it,)
speaks broadly of " duas personas, unam circa hominem, alteram
circa Verbum." But besides the above instances, we find the same
use in an extract from a work of Hippolytus preserved by Leontius,
Hippol. t. 2. p. 45. where he speaks of Christ as 2vo K^XTUKW* MTITW,
God and men.
Again S. Hilary speaks of utriusque naturae personam. de Trin.
ix. 14. ejus hominis quam assumpsit persona, in Psalm 63. n. 3.
vid. also in Psalm 138. n. 5. and S. Ambrose, in persona hominis.
de Fid. ii. n. 6l. v. n. 108. 124. Ep. 48. n. 4. From a passage
quoted from Paschasius Diaconus, de Spir. §. ii. 4. p. 194. by
Petavius (de Trin. iv. 4. §. 3.) it seems that the use of the word
persona in the sense of quality or state had not ceased even in the
6th century.
Further, it would seem as if the vague use of the word " per-
son," as used in speaking of the Holy Trinity, which S. Theo-
against Paul of Samosata. 173
philus and S. Clement above exemplify, on the whole ceased with NOTE
the rise of the Sabellian controversy and the adoption of the II.
word, (as in Hippol. contr. Noet. 14.) as a symbol against the ON
heresy. It is natural in like manner that till the great con- COUNC.
troversy concerning the Incarnation which Apollinaris began, *™'
a similar indistinctness should prevail in its use relatively to SELEU.
that doctrine.
And hence S. Cyril in his 4th anathema is obliged to explain the
word by the more accurately defined term hypostasis : ti TI$ TT^OO--
etTroig $vo-t, vyovv vTroerTcto-iri, K. r. A. Vid. also the caution or protest of
Vincentius Lirens. Comm. 14.
(4) Moreover, a contrast is observable between the later
accounts or interpretations of early writings, and those writings
themselves as far as we have them ; words and phrases being
imputed, which in the originals exist only in the ideas themselves
intended by them.
E.g. Ephrem of Antioch reports that S. Peter of Alexandria,
S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, &c. acknow-
ledge the doctrine of " the union of two natures and one
Subsistence and one Person." ap. Phot. cod. 229- p. 805 — 7- but
Chrysostom, &c. uses the words and phrases, stung, rwdquct,, e» o 630?
Xoyos KUI » rd£ ; Nazianzen is silent about persona in his Ep. ad
Cledon. to which Ephrem there refers, and Peter in all that
remains of him uses such words as <r«|
XOCl
Qvtru. Routh Rell. t. 3. p. 344—346.
Again, let it be observed how S. Maximus comments upon
S. Gregory Nazianzen 's words in the following passage : " The
great Gregory Theologus seems to me thus to teach in his great
Apologetic, ' One, llv, out of both, and both through One,' as if he
mould say, for as there is one out of both, thai is, of two natures,
One as a whole from parts according to the definition of hypostasis,
so," &c. t. 2. p. 282.
Instances of this kind, which are not unfrequent, make one
suspicious of such passages of the Fathers as come to us in
translation, as Theodoret's and Leontius's extract from S. Ambrose,
of which notice has been taken above ; especially as the common
Latin versions in the current editions of the Greek Fathers offer
parallel instances of the insertion of the words persona, &c. not in
the original, merely for the sake of perspicuity.
(5) It might be shewn too that according as alleged works of
the Fathers are spurious or suspected, so does persona appear as
one of their theological terms. The passage of S. Ambrose above
cited is in point ; but it would carry us too far from the subject to
illustrate this as fully as might be done; nor is it necessary.
Another specimen, however, may be taken from S. Athanasius. The
absence of ^rgocr&cirov from his acknowledged works has already been
noticed ; but let us turn to the fragments at the end of vol. 1. of
the Benedictine edition. E. g. p. 1279 is a fragment which
Montfaucon says olet quidpiam peregrinum, et videtur maxime
sub finem Eutychianorum hteresin impugnare ; it contains the
word TT^ruxov. And a third is the letter to Dionysius falsely
174 Alleged Confession of Ant loch
N OTE ascribed to Pope Julius, in which as before »•$•«•«»•« occurs, n. 2.
II. Coust. Ep. Pont. Rom. Append, p. 62. And for a fourth we
ON may refer to the wOtr* TK KXTM ^0$ 7nWs«? ascribed to S. Gregory
Thaumaturgus, one of the Antiochene Fathers, but which accord-
ing to Eulogius ap. Phot. cod. 230. p. 846. is an Apollinarian
SELEU. forgery; it too uses the word " persona" of the union of natures
~~ in our Lord. And for a fifth to the Serm. in S. Thomam, which
is quoted by the 6th General Council as S. Chrysostom's, but
which Montfaucon and his other Editors consider spurious, and
Tillemont considers preached at Edessa, A.D. 402. It contains the
word Tr^owTov. Ed. Ben. torn. 8. part 2. p. 34.
(6.) Too many words would have been spent on this point, were
it not for the eminent writers who have maintained the genuine-
ness of the Creed in question ; and in particular, were it not for
the circumstance, which is at first sight of great cogency, that
Tertullian, whose acquaintance with Greek theology is well
known, not only contains in his contr. Prax. a fully developed
statement of the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Incarnation, but
uses the very word persona or TrgoruTrov which has here been
urged in disproof of the genuineness of the Creed under con-
sideration.
Such passages shall here be subjoined as contain the word in
its ecclesiastical sense, as far as I have met with them.
In the extracts of the letters of Apollinaris and his disciples
who wrote against each other (A.D. 380.) the word occurs ap.
Leont. p. 1033. b. p. 1037. b. p. 1039- b. as well as the opoovnov
ipf* as noticed above.
Also in an extract of Apollinaris, ap. Theod. Eranist. ii. p. 173.
By an auctor against the Arians whom Sirmond called anti-
quissimus. Opp. t. i. p. 223.
By S. Athanasius, that is, as quoted by Euthymius. ap. Petav.
Incarn. iii. 15, note 19.
By S. Gregory Nyss. ap. Damasc. contr. Jacob, t. i. p. 424.
By S. Amphilochius, ap. Damasc. ibid, et ap. Anast, Hod.
10. p. 162. and ap. Ephrem. ap. Phot. p. 828.
In a Greek Version of S. Ambrose, ap. Phot. p. 805.
By S. Chrysostom, Ep. ad Caesar, fin.
By Isidore Pelus, p. 94. Epist. i. 360.
In Pelagius's Creed, A.D. 418. in S. August. Opp. t. 12. p. 210.
By S. Augustine, contr. Serm. Arian. 8. Ep. ad Volusian. 137-
n. 1 1 . de Corr. et Grat. 30.
By Proclus ad Armen. p. 6l3.
After the third General Council, A.D. 431, of course the word
becomes common.
(7.) It may be objected, that Paul of Samosata himself main-
tained a Nestorian doctrine, and that this would naturally lead to
the adoption of the word TrfauTftv to represent our Lord's unity
in His two natures, as it had already been adopted 60 years
before by Hippolytus to denote His Divine subsistence against
Noetus. But there is no good evidence of Paul's doctrine being
of this nature, though it seems to have tended to Nestorianism
in his followers. 1 allude to a passage in Athan. Orat. iv. §. 30.
against Paul of Samosata. 175
Where he says, that some of the Samosatenes so interpreted Acts x. NOTE
36, as if the Word was sent to " preach peace through Jesus H.
Christ." As far as the fragments of the Antiochene Acts state or c ONT
imply, he taught more or less, as follows: — that the Son's pre-exist- A RIM.'
ence was only in the divine foreknowledge, Routh Rell. t. 2. p. 466. AND
that to hold His substantial pre-existence was to hold two Gods, SELEU.
ibid. p. 467. that He was, if not an instrument, an impersonal ~~
attribute, p. 469. that His manhood was not " unalterably made
one with the Godhead," p. 473. " that the Word and Christ were
not one and the same," p. 474. that Wisdom was in Christ as in
the prophets, only more abundantly, as in a temple ; that He
who appeared was not Wisdom, p. 475. in a word as it is sum-
med up, p. 484. that " W7isdom was born with the manhood,
not substantially, but according to quality." vid. also p. 476. 485.
All this plainly shews that he held that our Lord's personality was
in His Manhood, but does not shew that he held a second per-
sonality in His godhead; rather he considered the Word imper-
sonal, though the Fathers in Council urge upon him that he ought
to hold two Sons, one from eternity, and one in time, p. 485.
Accordingly the Synodal Letter after his deposition speaks of
him as holding that Christ came not from Heaven, but from
beneath. Euseb. Hist. vii. 30. S. Athanasius's account of his
doctrine is altogether in accordance, (vid. supr. p. 1 6, note i.) that
Paul taught that our Lord was a mere man, and that He was
advanced to His divine power, IK TT^OCOTT^.
However, since there was a great correspondence between Paul
and Nestorius, (except in the doctrine of the personality and
eternity of the Word, which the Arian controversy determined
and the latter held,) it was not unnatural that reference should be
made to the previous heresy of Paul and its condemnation when
that of Nestorius was on trial. Yet the Contestatio against Nestorius
which commences the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, Harduin.
Cone. t. i. p. 1272. and which draws out distinctly the parallel
between them, says nothing to shew that Paul held a double per-
sonality. And though Anastasius tells us, Hodeg. c. 7. p. 108. that
the "holy Ephesian Council shewed that the tenets of Nestorius
agreed with the doctrine of Paul of Samosata," yet in c. 20.
p. 323, 4. he shews us what he means by saying that Artemon
also before Paul " divided Christ in two." Ephrem of Antioch
too says that Paul held that " the Son before ages was one, and
the Son in the last time another." ap. Phot. p. 814. but he seems
only referring to the words of the Antiochene Acts, quoted above.
Again, it is plain from what Vigilius says in Eutych. t. v. p. 731.
Ed. Col. 161 8. (the passage is omitted in Ed. Par. 1624.) that
the Eutychians considered that Paul and Nestorius differed; the
former holding that our Lord was a mere man, the latter a mere
man only till He was united to the Word. And Marius Mercator
says, " Nestorius circa Verbum Dei, non ut Paulus sentit, qui non
substaritivum, sed prolatitium potentiae Dei efficax Verbum esse
definit." p. 50. Ibas, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, though more
suspicious witnesses, say the same, vid. Facund. vi. 3. iii. 2. and
Leontius de Sectis, iii. p. 504.
176 Alleged Confession of Anlioch against Paul ofSamosala.
NOTE The principal evidence in favour of Paul's Nestorianism consists
II. in the Letter of Dionysius to Paul and his answer to Paul's Ten
ON Questions, which are certainly spurious, as on other grounds, so
(^5>UNC-on some of those here urged against the professed Creed of
AND*' -Antioch, but which Dr. Burton in his excellent remarks on Paul's
SELEU. opinions, Bampton Lectures, No. 102, admits as genuine. And so
~~ does the accurate and cautious Tillemont, who in consequence is
obliged to believe that Paul held Nestorian doctrines ; also Bull,
Fabricius, Natalis Alexander, &c. In holding these compositions
to be certainly spurious, I am following Valesius, Harduin, Mont-
faucon, Pagi, Mosheim, Cave, Routh, and others.
It might be inquired in conclusion, whether after all the Creed
does not contain marks of Apollinarianism in it, which, if answered
in the affirmative, would tend to fix its date. As, however, this
would carry us further still from our immediate subject in this
Volume, it has been judged best not to enter upon the question.
Some indulgence may fairly be asked for what has been already
said, from its bearing upon the history of the word
FOUR DISCOURSES OF S. ATHANASIUS,
ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA,
AGAINST THE ARIANS.
DISCOURSE I.
CHAP. I.
INTRODUCTION.
Reason for writing; certain persons indifferent about Arianism; Arians
not Christians, because sectaries always take the name of their founder.
1. OF all other heresies which have departed from the truth CHAP.
it is acknowledged, that they have but devised* a madness1, — — - —
and their irreligiousness2 has long since become notorious ip 2 '
to all men. For, thatb their authors went out from us, itnotee-
plainly follows, as the blessed John has written, that they note q.
neither thought nor now think with us. Wherefore, as saith 2 P- J '
note a.
the Saviour, in that they gather not with us, they scatter with
the devil, and keep an eye on those who slumber, that, by this
second sowing3 of their own mortal poison, they may have3 p. f>,
companions in death. But, whereas one heresy and that the no
This is almost a tech- but what from the beginning the Ecde-
nical word, and has occurred again sicistical Tradition declared.1' Hist. iii.
and again already, as descriptive of 7. The sense of the word I rm/a which
heretical teaching in opposition to the will come into consideration below, is
received traditionary doctrine. It is akin to this, being the view taken by
also found passim in other writers, the mind of an object independent of
Thus Socrates, speaking of the decree (whether or not correspondent to) the
of the Council of Alexandria, 362, object itself.
against Apollinaris ; "for not origi- '' TO yu.^ \'ti\6i7v ---- 1**.™ «» »/'», i. e.
nating, Ivrtiowuvrtf , any novel devotion, vu and so infr. §. 43. r^ Tt *«.}
did they introduce it into the Church, \lv6an ---- JJjAov &* i<V
N
178 Arians, tin like forme?- heretics, appeal to Scripture.
Disc, last, which has now risen as harbinger1 of Antichrist, the
i — - Arian, as it is called, considering that other heresies, her
note q.' elder sisters, have been openly proscribed, in her cun-
ning and profligacy, affects to array herself in Scripture
language0, like her father the devil, and is forcing her way
back into the Church's paradise, — that with the pretence of
Christianity, her smooth sophistry (for reason she has none)
may deceive men into wrong thoughts of Christ, — nay, since
she hath already seduced certain of the foolish, not only to
corrupt their ears, but even to take and eat with Eve, till in
their ignorance which ensues they think bitter sweet, and
admire this loathsome heresy, on this account I have thought
Job 41, it necessary, at your request, to unrip the folds of its breast-
' plate, and to shew the ill-savour of its folly. So while those
who are far from it, may continue to shun it, those whom it
has deceived may repent ; and> opening the eyes of their
heart, may understand that darkness is not light, nor false-
hood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that thosed who call
e vid. infr. $. 4 fin. That heresies founded on some particular text. e. g.
before the Arian appealed to Scripture infr. §. 22. " amply providing them-
we learn from Tertullian, de Prsescr. selves with words of craft, they used to
42. who warns Catholics against in- go about,&c cr*^J5f^avra."vid.supr.p.22.
dulging themselves in their own view note y. Also oivu *«} x&ru vrtgitp'igavrts,
of isolated texts against the voice of the de deer. §. 13. ru p-nru -rtfyvXXrixKfft TO,
Catholic Church, vid. also Vincentius, vravrx^ov. Orat. ii. §. 18. <ro foXvfyvi.-
who specifies obiter Sabellius and No- Xnrov <ro(pi<rftet, Basil, contr. Eunom. ii.
vatian. Commonit.2. Still Arianism was 14. vwv yroXvfyvXXvTov ^tuXtxnxriv , Nys-
contrastcd with other heresies on this sen. contr. tun. iii. p. 125. *w 6%v\-
point, as in these two respects ; (l.)they *.«up.ivti» uxoppow. Cyril. Dial. iv. p.505.
appealed to a secret tradition, unknown. r«» xvXufyvXXnrov Qavw. Socr. ii. 43.
even to most of the Apostles, as the d These Orations or Discourses seem
Gnostics, Iren. Haer. iii. I. or they pro- written to shew the vital importance of
fessed a gift of prophecy introducing the point in controversy, and the un-
fresh revelations, as Montanists, supr. Christian character of the heresy,
p. 78. and Manichees, Aug. coutr. without reference to the word eftoounov.
Faust, xxxii. 6. (2.) The Arians He has insisted in the works above
availed themselves of certain texts translated, p. 130, ref.2. that the enforce-
as objections, argued keenly and ment of the symbol was but the rejec-
plausibly from them, and would tion of the heresy, and accordingly he
not be driven from them. Orat. ii. is here content to bring out the Catholic
§. 18. c. Epiph. Haer. 69. 15. Or rather sense, as feeling that, if persons under-
they took some words of Scripture, and stood and embraced it, they would not
made their own deductions from them ; scruple at the word. He seems to
viz. " Son," " made," " exalted," &c. allude to what maybe called the liberal
" Making their private irreligiousness or indifferent feeling as swaying the per-
as if a rule, they misinterpret all the son for whom he writes, also infr. §.
divine oracles by it." Orat.i. §.52. vid. 7 fin. §. 9. §. 10 init. §. 15 fin. §. 17.
also Epiph. Haer. 76.5 fin. Hence we §. 21. $. 23. He mentions in Apollin.
hear so^much of their 6^v\\r,ru} <p<u»«/, i. 6. one Rhetorius, who was an Egyp-
Xi£s/j, ?T»J, purof, sayings in general tian, whose opinion, he says, it was
circulation, which were commonly " fearful to mention," S. Augustine
Arians for Christ follow Arius. 179
these men Christians, are in great and grievous error, as CHAP.
neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Christi- — - —
anity at all, and the faith which it contains.
2. For what have they discovered in this heresy like to the §. 2.
religious Faith, that they vainly talk as if its supporters said
no evil ? This in truth is to call even Caiaphas J a Christian, 'deDecr.
and to reckon the traitor Judas still among the Apostles, and | ^ '*'
to say that they who asked Barabbas instead of the Saviour 41. §.27,
did no evil, and to recommend Hymen sens and Alexander as
right-minded men, and as if the Apostle slandered them.
But neither can a Christian bear to hear this, nor can he
consider the man who dared to say it sane in his understand-
ing. For with them for Christ is Arius, as with the
Manichees Manichaeus ; and for Moses and the other saints
they have made the discovery of one Sotades2, a man whom 2 p. 94,
even Gentiles laugh at, and of the daughter of Herodias. note a'
For of the one has Arius imitated the dissolute and effe-
minate tone, in the Thalias which he has written after him;
and the other he has rivalled in her dance, reeling and
frolicking in his blasphemies against the Saviour; till the
victims of his heresy lose their wits and go foolish, and
change the Name of the Lord of glory into the likeness of
the image of corruptible man5, and for Christians'1 come to be3vid.Htt.
called Arians, bearing this badge of their irreligion. viii. 28.'
3. For let them not excuse themselves; nor retort their ^om< *»
disgrace on those who are not as they, calling Christians after 4 p. 27,
the names of their teachers0, that they themselves may appear note h*
tells us that this man taught that " all Pelagians ; as even by heresies are
heresies were in the right path, and Arians called Arians. But ye, and ye
spoke truth," " which," he adds, " is only, call us Traducianists, as Arians
so absurd as to seem to me incre- call us Homolisians, as Donatists Ma-
dible." Hser. 72. vid. also Philastr. carians, as Manichees Pharisees, and
Hser. 91. as the other heretics use various titles."
e He seems to allude to Catholics Op. imp. i. 75. It may be added that
being called Athanasians; vid. how- the heretical n-aine adheres^ the Ca-
ever p. 181, ref. 1. Two distinctions tholic dies away. S. Chrysostom draws
are drawnbetweensuch a title as applied a second distinction, '' Are we divided
to Catholics, and again to heretics, when from the Church? have we heresi-
they are taken by Catholics as a note archs ? are we called from man ? is
against them. S. Augustine says, there any leader to us, as to one there
"Arians call Catholics Athanasians or is Marcion, to another Manichseus, to
Homousians, not other heretics too. another Arius, to another some other
But ye not only by Catholics but also by author of heresy? for if we too have
heretics, those who agree with you the name of any, still it is not those
and those who disagree, are called who began the heresy, but our superiors
N2
180 Self-condemned in that they are called after Arms
DISC, to have that Name in the same way. Nor let them make a jest
'• of it, when they feel shame at their disgraceful appellation ;
rather, if they be ashamed, let them hide their faces, or
let them recoil from their own irreligion. For never at
any time did Christian people take their title from the
1 vid. Bishops1 among them, but from the Lord, on whom we rest
p° 179^ our faith. Thus, though the blessed Apostles have become our
teachers, and have ministered the Saviour's Gospel, yet not
from them have we our title, but from Christ we are and are
named Christians. But for those who derive the faith which
they profess from others, good reason is it they should
§.3. bear their name, whose property they have become f. Yes
note e,
fin.
and governors of the Church. We have
not ' teachers upon earth,' " &c. in
Act. Ap. Horn. 33 fin.
f vid. foregoing note. Also "Let us be-
come His disciples and learn to live ac-
cording to Christianity ; for whoso is
called by other name beside this, is not
of God."Ignat. ad Magn.10. Hegisippus
speaks of" Menandrians, and Marcion-
ites, and Carpocratians, and Valentini-
ans, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians,"
who " each in his own way and that
a different one brought in his own
doctrine." Euseb. Hist. iv. 22. "There
are, and there have been, my friends,
many who have taught atheistic and
blasphemous words and deeds, coming
in the Name of Jesus ; and they are
called by us from the appellation of the
men, whence each doctrine and opinion
began Some are called Marcians,
others Valentinians, others Basilidians,
others Saturnilians," &c. Justin.
Tryph. 35. " They have a name from
the author of that most impious opinion
Simon, being called Simonians." Iren.
Han\ i. 23. " When men are called
Phrygians, or Novatians, or Valenti-
nians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians,
or by any other name, they cease to be
Christians ; for they have lost Christ's
Name, and clothe themselves in human
and foreign titles." Lact. Inst. iv. 30.
" A. How are you a Christian, to
whom it is not even granted to bear the
name of Christian? for you are not called
Christian but Marcionite. M. And
you are called of the Catholic Church ;
therefore ye are not Christians either.
A. Did we profess man's name, you
would have spoken to the point; but if
we are called from being all over the
world, what is there bad in this ?" Ada-
mant. Dial. $. 1. p. 809. " We never
heard of Petrines, or Paulines, or Bar-
tholomeans, or Thaddeans, but from the
first there was one preaching of all the
Apostles, not preaching them, but Chi-ist
Jesus the Lord. Wherefore also they
all gave one name to the Church, not
their own, but that of their Lord Jesus
Christ, since they began to be called
Christians first at Antioch ; which is
the sole Catholic Church, having nought
else but Christ's, being a Church of
Christians, not of Christs, but of Chris-
tians ; He being one, they from that
one being called Christians. After this
Church and her preachers, all others
are no longer of the same character,
making show by their own epithets,
Manichaeans, and Simonians, and Va-
lentinians, and Ebionites." Epiph.
Hcer. 42. p. 366. " This is the fearful
thing, that they change the name of
Christians of the Holy Church, which
hath no epithet but the name of Christ
alone, and of Christians, to be called
by the name of Audius, ' &c. ibid. 70.
15. vid. also Hser. 75. 6 fin. " Since
one might properly and truly say that
there is a ' Church of evil doers,' I
mean the meetings of the heretics, the
Marcionists, and Manichees, and the
rest, the faith hath delivered to thee
by way of security the Article ' And
in One Holy Catholic Church,' that
thou mayest avoid their wretched
meetings ; and ever abide with the
Holy Church Catholic, in which thou
wast regenerated. And if ever thou
art sojourning in any city, inquire not
simply where the Lord's House is, (for
the sects of the profane also make an
attempt to call their own dens, houses
of the Lord,) nor merely where the
as other heretics after their leaders. 181
surely; while all of us are arid are called Christians alter CHAP.
Christ, Marcion broaehed a heresy time since and was cast — L_.
out ; and those who continued with the Bishop who ejected
him remained Christians ; but those who followed Marcion,
were called Christians no more, but henceforth Marcion-
ites. Thus Valentinus also, and Basilides, and Manichaeus,
and Simon Magus, have imparted their own name to their
followers; and are accosted as Valentinians, or as Basilidians,
or as Manichees, or as Simonians ; and others, Cataphrygians
from Phrygia, and from Novatus Novatians. So too Meletius,
when ejected by Peter the Bishop and Martyr, called his
party, no longer Christians, but Meletians g ; and so in con-
sequence when Alexander of blessed memory had cast out
Arius, those who remained with Alexander, remained
Christians; but those who went out with Arius, left the
Saviour's Name to us who were with Alexander, and as to
them they were henceforward denominated Arians. Behold
then, after Alexander's death too, those who communicate
with his successor Athanasius, and those with whom the said
Athanasius communicates, are instances of the same rule ;
none of them bear his name1, nor is he named from them, but i vjd.
all in like manner, and as is usual, are called Christians. hop!s)c'
For though we have a succession of teachers and become note e.
Church is, but where is the Catholic gogue of Antichrist/' Jerom. adv.
Church. For this is the peculiar name Lucif. fin.
of this Holy Body," &c. Cyril. Cat. e vid. supr. p. 89, note m. Meletius
xviii. 26. " Were I by chance to was Bishop of Lycopolis in the The-
enter a populous city, I should in this bais, in the first years of the fourth cen-
day find Marcionites, Apollinarians, tury. He was convicted of sacrificing
Cataphrygians, Novatians, and other to idols in the persecution, .and deposed
such, who called themselves Christian ; by a Council under Peter, Bishop of
by what surname should I recognise Alexandria, and subsequently martyr.
the congregation of my own people, Meletius separated from his communion,
were it not called Catholic? Cer- and commenced a schism ; at the time
tainly that word l Catholic' is not of the Nicene Council it included as
borrowed from man, which has sur- many as twenty-eight or thirty Bishops;
vived through so many ages, nor has the in the time of Theodoret, a century and
sound of Marcion or Apelles or Mon- quarter later, it included a number of
tanus, nor takes heretics for its authors Monks. Though not heterodox, they
..Christian is my name, Catholic my supported the Arians on their first
surname." Pacian. Ep. 1. " If you appearance, in their contest with the
ever hear those who are called Chris- Catholics. The Council of Nicaea, in-
tians, named, not from the Lord Jesus stead of deposing them, allowed theii
Christ, but from some one else, say Bishops a titular rank in their sees, but
Marcionites, Valentinians, Moun- forbade them to exercise their func-
taineers, Campestrians, know that it is tions.
not Christ's Church, but the syna-
182 For Scripture the Arians follow the Thalia.
Disc, their disciples, yet, because we are taught by them the things
L of Christ, we both are, and are called, Christians all the same.
But those who follow the heretics, though they have innu-
merable successors in their heresy, yet for certain bear the
name of him who devised it. Thus, though Arius be dead,
and many of his party have succeeded him, yet those who
think with him, as being known from Arius, are called Arians.
And, what is a remarkable evidence of this, those of the
Greeks who even at this time come into the Church, on
giving up the superstition of idols, take the name, not of
their catechists, but of the Saviour, and are henceforth for
Greeks called Christians ; while those of them who go off
to the heretics, and again all who from the Church change to
this heresy, abandon Christ's name, and at once are called
Arians, as no longer holding Christ's faith, but having in-
herited Anus's madness.
§.4. 4. How then can they be Christians, who for Christians are
Ano-maniacs h ? or how are they of the Catholic Church, who
have shaken off the Apostolical faith, and become authors of
what is new and evil ? who, after abandoning the oracles
of divine Scripture, call Arius's Thalias a new wisdom ?
and with reason too, for they are announcing a new heresy.
And hence a man may marvel, that, whereas many have written
many treatises and abundant homilies upon the Old Testament
and the New, yet in none of them is a Thalia found ; nay
nor among the more respectable of the Gentiles, but among
those only who sing such strains over their cups, amid cheers
and jokes, when men are merry, that the rest may laugh ; till
this marvellous Arius, taking no grave pattern, and ignorant
even of what is respectable, while he stole largely from other
heresies, would be original in the ludicrous, with none but
Sotades for his rival. For what beseemed him more, when
he would dance forth against the Saviour, then to throw his
wretched words of irreligion into dissolute and abandoned
vid. metres ? that, while a man, as Wisdom says, is known from
Ecclus. J '
4, 24.
h vid. p. 91, note q. Manes also Catecb. vi. 20. vid. also ibid. 24 fin.
was called mad ; " Thou must hate — a play upon the name. vid. p. 114,
all heretics, but especially him who note b.
even in name is a maniac." Cvril.
In vain to appeal to Scripture, when doctrine is heretical. 183
the utterance of his word, so from those numbers should be CHAP.
seen the writer's effeminate soul and corruption of thought1. — - —
In truth, that crafty one did not escape detection ; but, for all
his many writhings to and fro, like the seipent, he did but
fall into the error of the Pharisees. They, that they might
transgress the Law, pretended to be anxious for the words
of the Law, and that they might deny the expected and then
present Lord, were hypocritical with God's name, and were
convicted of blaspheming when they said, Why dost Thou, Johnio,
being a man, make Tlujself Godk, and sayest, / and the
Father are one ? And so too, this counterfeit and Sotadean
Arius, feigns to speak of God, introducing Scripture language *, ! P- 1^8>
1 It is very difficult to gain a clear
idea of the character of Arius. Atha-
nasius speaks as if his Thalia was but
a token of his persDnal laxity, and cer-
tainly the mere fact of his having
written it seems incompatihle with any
remarkable seriousness and strictness.
Yet Constantine and Epiphanius speak
of him in very different terms, yet each
in his own way, in the following ex-
tracts. It is possible that Constantine
is only declaiming, for his whole in-
vective is like a school exercise or fancy
composition. Constantine too had not
seen Arius at the time of this invective
which was prior to the Nicene Council,
and his account of him is inconsistent
with itself, for he also uses the very strong
and broad language about Arius qaoted
supr. p. 94, note a. " Look then, look
all men, what words of lament he is now
professing, being held with the bite of
the serpent ; how his veins and flesh are
possessed with poison, and are in a
ferment of severe pain ; how his whole
body is wasted, and is all withered and
sad and pale and shaking, and all that
is miserable, and fearfully emaciated.
How hateful to see, and filthy is his
mass of hair, how he is half dead all
over, with failing eyes, and bloodless
countenance, and woe-begone ! so that
all these things combining in him at
once, frenzy, madness, and folly, for
the continuance of the complaint, have
made thee wild and savage. But not
having any sense, what bad plight he is
in, he cries out, l I am transported with
delight, and I leap and skip for joy, and
I fly:' and again, with boyish impe-
tuosity, ' Be it so/ he says, ' we are
lost.' " Harduin. Cone. t. i. p. 457.
Perhaps this strange account may be
taken to illustrate the words " mania"
and " Ario-maniacs." S. Alexander
too speaks of Arius 's melancholic teva.-
**f. Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 741. S.Ba-
sil also speaks of the Eunomians as ilf
contr. Eun. ii. 24. Elsewhere he speaks
of the Pneumatomachists as worse than
fttXa'y%o&&trts. de Sp. S. 41. Epipha-
nius rs account of Arius is as follows : —
u From elation of mind the old man
swerved from the mark. He was in
stature very tall, downcast in visage,
with manners like wily serpent, capti-
vating to every guileless heart by that
same crafty bearing. For ever habited
in cloke and vest he was pleasant of
address, ever persuading souls and flat-
tering ; wherefore what was his very
first work but to withdraw from the
Church in one body as many as seven
hundred women who professed virgin-
ity?" Haer. 69. 3. Arius is here said
to have been tall ; Athanasius, on the
other hand, would appear to have been
short, if we may so interpret Julian's
indignant description of him, ptdl «v^,
aXX* avfyu-riffxes ivrtXiit, u not even a
man, but a common little fellow." Ep.
51 . Yet S. Gregory Nazianzen speaks
of him as u high in prowess, and hum-
ble in spirit, mild, meek, full of sympa-
thy, pleasant in speech, more pleasant
in manners, angelical in person, more
angelical in mind, serene in his rebukes.
instructive in his praises," &c. £c. Orat.
21.9.
184
Arianism an Atheism.
Disc, but is on all sides recognised as godless k Arius, denying the
— L_. Son, and reckoning Him among the creatures.
k And so godless or atheist Ae-
tius, supr. p. 81. vid. p. 3, note f. for
an explanation of the word. In like
manner Athan. says, ad Scrap, iii. 2.
that if a man says " that the Son is a
creature, who is Word and Wisdom,
and the Expression, and the Radiance,
whom whoso seeth seeth the Father,"
he falls under the text, " Whoso de-
nieth the Son, the same hath not the
Father." " Such a one," he continues,
" will in no long time say, as the fool,
There is no God." In like manner he
speaks of those who think the Son to
he the Spirit as " without (1|») the Holy
Trinity, and atheists." Scrap, iv. 6.
hecause they really do not believe in
the God that is, and there is none
other hut He. And so again, u As the
faith delivered [in the Holy Trinity] is
one, and this unites us to God, and he
who takes aught from the Trinity, and
is baptized in the sole Name of the
Father or of the Son, or in Father and
Son without the Spirit, gains nothing,
but remains empty and incomplete,
both he and the professed administrator,
(for in the Trinity is the completion,
[initiation,]) so whoso divides the Son
from the Father, or degrades the
Spirit to the creatures, hath neither the
Son nor the Father, but is an atheist
and worse than an infidel and any
thing but a Christian.*' Scrap, i. 30.
Eustathius speaks of the Arians as
eivtov*ovi a.6ie»;, who were attempting
xguTr<0-ai rev Si'itv. ap. Theod. Hist. i. 7.
p. 760. .Naz. speaks of the heathen
xolvlug Mtia.. Orat. 25. 15. and he
calls faith and regeneration " a denial
of atheism, Mttuf, and a confession
of godhead, homves, Orat. 23. 12. He
calls Lucius, the Alexandrian Anti-
pope, on account of his cruelties, " this
second Arius, the more copious river of
the atheistic spring, rtis aPiov xtiyris"
Orat. 25. 11. Palladius, the Imperial
officer, is «v>i£ afioe. ibid. 12.
CHAP. II.
EXTRACTS FROM THE THALIA OF ARIUS.
Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always ;
the Son out of nothing; once He was not; He was not before His gene-
ration ; He was created ; named Wisdom and Word after God's attributes ;
made that He might make us ; one out of many powers of God ; alterable ;
exalted on God's foreknowledge what He was to be; not very God; but
called so as others by participation ; foreign in substance from the Father;
does not know or see the Father; does not know Himself.
1. Now the commencement of Anus's Thalia and flip- CHAP.
TT
pancy, effeminate in tone and nature, runs thus : —
§.5.
" According to faith of God's elect, God's prudent ones,
Holy children, rightly dividing, God's Holy Spirit receiving,
Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom,
Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things.
Along their track, have I been walking, with like opinions,
I the very famous, the much suffering for God's glory;
And taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and knowledge."
Arid the mockeries which he utters in it, repulsive and
most irreligious, are such as these l : — " God was not always « de Sy a.
a Father ;" but " once God was alone and not yet a Father, $' j^*
but afterwards He became a Father." " The Son was not
always ;" for, whereas all things were made out of nothing,
and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word
of God Himself was " made out of nothing," and " once He
was not," and " He was not before His generation," but He
as others " had an origin of creation." " For God," he says,
" was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom.
Then, wishing to frame us, thereupon He made a certain
one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that
He might form us by means of Him." Accordingly, he says
186 Arius's Thalia
Disc, that there are two wisdoms, first, the attribute coexistent with
— - — God, and next, that in this Wisdom the Son was generated,
and was only named Wisdom and Word as partaking of it.
" For Wisdom," saith he, " by the will of the wise God, had
its existence in Wisdom." In like manner, he says, that there
is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son
again as partaking of it, is named Word and Son according
to grace. And this too is an idea proper to their heresy, as
shewn in other works of theirs, that there are many powers ;
one of which is God's own by nature and eternal ; but that
Christ, on the other hand, is not the true power of God ; but,
as others, one of the so-called powers ; one of which, namely,
'deSyn. t^e ]ocust and the caterpillar1, is called in Scripture, not
101. ' merely the power, but the great power. The others are
2^e 2' many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the
Ps. 24, Psalms, when he says, The Lord of hosts or powers. And by
nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and
remains good by His own free will, while He chooseth ; when,
however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an
alterable nature. For " therefore," saith he, " as foreknowing
that He would be good, did God by anticipation bestow on
Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from
3 p. 11, virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known2,
114, did God bring it to pass that He, being such, should come
note c' to be."
§. 6. 2. Moreover he has dared to say, that "the Word is not the
very God ;" " though He is called God, yet He is not very
God," but "by participation of grace, He, as others, is God
only in name." And, whereas all beings are foreign and dif-
ferent from God in substance, so too is " the Word alien and
unlike in all things to the Father's substance and propriety,"
but belongs to things generated and created, and is one
of these. Afterwards, as though he had succeeded to the
devil's recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia, that " even
to the Son the Father is invisible," and " the Word cannot
perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father ;"
but even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and
sees " in proportion to His own measure," as we also know
according to our own power. For the Son too, he says, not
only knows not the Father exactly, for He fails in compre-
excites horror. 187
hension % but " He knows not even His own substance ;" — CHAP.
and that " the substances of the Father and the Son and the IL
Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and discon-
nected, and alien1, and without participation of each other2;" l P- 43>
and, in his own words, "utterly unlike from each other in 2 p. 95^
substance and glory, unto infinity." Thus as to " likeness note d-
of glory and substance," he says that the Word is entirely
diverse from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such
words hath the irreligious spoken ; maintaining that the Son is
distinct by Himself, and in no respect partaker of the Father.
These are portions of Arius's fables as they occur in that
jocose composition.
3. Who is there that hears all this, nay, the metre of the §. 7.
Thalia, but must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting
on such matters as on a stage3? who but must regard him, 3 EP>
when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as thegncycL
serpent counselling the woman ? who, on reading what fol- Epiph.
lows in his work, but must discern in his irreligious doc-^" 3
trine that error, into which by his sophistries the serpent
in the sequel seduced the woman ? who at such blasphemies
is not transported ? The heaven, as the Prophet says, was Jer. 2,
astonished, and the earth shuddered at the transgression of1
the Law. But the sun, with greater horror once, impatient
of the bodily contumelies, which the common Lord of all
voluntarily endured for us, turned away, and recalling his
rays made that day sunless. And shall not all human kind
n Vid. supr. p. 96, note f. xaraX^j Father, was to deny that He was in the
was originally a Stoical word, and even Father, i. e. the doctrine of the «ri£/-
when considered perfect, was, properly w^ws. p. 95, note d. or to main-
speaking, attributable only to an imper- tain that He was a distinct, and there-
feet being. For it is used in contrast to fore a created, being. On the other hand
the Platonic doctrine of Tbiett, to express Scripture asserts that, as the Holy
the hold of things obtained by the mind Spirit which is in God, " searcheth all
through the senses ; it being a Stoical things, yea, the deep things" of God,
maxim, nihil esse in intellectu quod so the Son, as being " in the bosom of
non fuerit prius in sensu. In this sense the Father," alone "hath declared
it is also used by the Fathers, to mean Him." vid. Clement. Strom, v. 12.
real and certain knowledge after inquiry, And thus Athan. speaking of Mark
though it is also ascribed to Almighty 13, 32. " If the Son is in the Fa-
God. As to the position of Arius, ther, and the Father in the Son,
since we are told in Scripture that none and the Father knows the day and
" knoweth the things of a man save the the hour, it is plain that the Son too,
spirit of man which is in him," if xa.ru.- being in the Father, and knowing the
Ajj-^.y b? an exact and complete know- things in the Father, Himself also
ledge of the object of contemplation, knows the day and the hour." Orat.
to deny that the Son comprehended the iii. 44.
188 A Council's decision sufficient, even without argument.
Disc, at Arius's blasphemies be struck speechless, and stop
*' their ears, and shut their eyes, to escape hearing them or
seeing their author ? Rather, will not the Lord Himself have
reason to denounce men so irreligious, nay, so unthank-
ful, in the words which He hath already uttered by the
Hos. 7, prophet Hosea, Woe unto them, for they have fled from Me;
destruction upon them, for they have transgressed against
Me ; though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken
v. 15. lies against Me. And soon after, They imagine mischief
against Me ; they turn away to nothing. For to turn away
from the Word of God, which is, and to fashion to themselves
one that is not, is to fall to what is nothing. For this was
• p. 49, why the Ecumenical * Council, when Arius thus spoke, cast
him from the Church, and anathematized him, as impatient
of such irreligion. And ever since has Arius's error been
reckoned for a heresy more than ordinary, being known as
2P-6> Christ's foe2, and harbinger3 of Antichrist. Though then so
"p?i78, great a condemnation be itself of special weight to make men
ref. i. flee fr0m that irreligious heresy b, as I said above, yet since
certain persons called Christian, either in ignorance or pre-
tence, think it as I then said, little different from the Truth,
4 P. 170, and call its professors Christians4; proceed we to put some
questions to them, according to our powers, thereby to expose
the unscrupulousness of the heresy. Perhaps, when thus en-
countered, they will be silenced, and flee from it, as from the
sight of a serpent.
b And so Vigilius of the heresies hsereticisuntpronunciati,orthodoxorum
about the Incarnation, Etiamsi in erro- securitati sufficeret. contr. Eutych. i.
ris eorum destructionem nulli conde- p. 494.
rentur libri, hoc ipsum solum, quod
CHAP. III.
THE IMPORTANCE OP THE SUBJECT.
The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine new, as well as
unscriptural. Statement of the Catholic doctrine, that the Son is proper
to the Father's substance, and eternal. Restatement of Arianism in
contrast, that He is a creature with a beginning: the controversy comes
to this issue, whether one whom we are to believe in as God, can be so
in name only, and is merely a creature. What pretence then for being
indifferent in the controversy? The Arians rely on state patronage, and
dare not avow their tenets.
1. IF then the use of certain phrases of divine Scripture CHAP.
changes, in their opinion, the blasphemy of the Thalia into ITL
blessing, of course they ought also to deny Christ with the ^'
present Jews, when they see how they study the Law and
the Prophets; perhaps too they will deny the Law1 and the1 P- 130>
Prophets like Manicheesa, because the latter read some portions
of the Gospels. If such bewilderment and empty speaking be
from ignorance, Scripture will teach them, that the devil, the
author of heresies, because of the ill-savour which attaches to
evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak wherewith to sow
the ground with his own poison, and to seduce the simple. Thus
he deceived Eve ; thus he framed former heresies ; thus he
has persuaded Arius at this time to make a show of speaking
against those former ones, that he may introduce his own
without observation. And yet, after all, the man of craft
hath not escaped. For being irreligious towards the Word
of God, he lost his all at once2, and betrayed to all men his2 p. 2,
ignorance of other heresies toob ; and having not a particle of
• Faustus, in August, contr. Faust, them. They rejected many of the facts,
ii. 1. admits the Gospels, (vid. Beau- e. g. our Lord's nativity, circumcision,
sohre Manich. t. i. p. 291, &c.) but baptism, temptation, &c. ibid, xxxii. 6.
denies that they were written by the b All heresies seem connected to-
reputed authors, ibid, xxxii. 2. but gether and to run into each other.
nescioquibusSemi-judseis.ibid.xxxiii.3. When the mind has embraced one, it
Accordingly they thought themselves is almost certain to run into others,
at liberty to reject or correct parts of apparently the most opposite, it is
190 Arianism involved misbelief as regards all doctrines.
Disc, truth in his belief, does but pretend to it. For how can he
L_ speak truth concerning the Father, who denies the Son, that
reveals concerning Him ? or how can he be orthodox con-
cerning the Spirit, while he speaks profanely of the Word
that supplies the Spirit ? and who will trust him concerning
the Resurrection, denying, as he does, Christ for us the
first-begotten from the dead? and how shall he not err in
lir&tKM respect to His incarnate presence1, who is simply ignorant
rotjotf- Q£ ^ gon's genuilie and true generation from the Father r
For thus, the former Jews also, denying the Word, and say-
ing, We have no king but Ccesar, were forthwith stripped of
all they had, and forfeited the light of the Lamp, the odour
of ointment, knowledge of prophecy, and the Truth itself; till
now they understand nothing, but are walking as in darkness,
p. 12, jror wno was ever vet a hearer of such a doctrine2? or whence
«.*.« -, *
or from whom did the abettors and hirelings0 of the heresy
note y
quite uncertain which. Thus Arians
were a reaction from Sabellians, yet
did not the less consider than they that
God was but one Person, and that
Christ was a creature, supr. p. 41, note
e. Apollinaris was betrayed into his
heresy by opposing the Arians, yet his
heresy started with the tenet in which
the Arians ended, that Christ had no
human soul. His disciples became, and
even naturally, some of them Sabellians,
some Arians. Again, beginning with
denying our Lord a soul, he came to
deny Him a body, like the Mani-
chees and Docetffi. The same pas-
sages from Athanasius will be found
to refute both Eutychians and Nesto-
rians, though diametrically opposed to
each other : and these agreed together,
not only in considering nature andperson
identical, but, strange to say, in holding,
and the Apollinarians too, that our
Lord's manhood existed before its union
with Him, which is the special heresy of
Nestorius. Again, the Nestorians were
closely connected with the Sabellians
and Samosatenes, and the latter with the
Photinians and modern Socinians. And
the Nestorians were connected with the
Pelagians ; and Aerius, who denied
Episcopacy and prayers for the dead
with the Arians ; and his opponent the
Semi-arian Eustathius with the Encra-
tites. One reason of course of this pecu-
liarity of heresy is, that when the
mind is once unsettled, it may fall into
any error. Another is that it is heresy ;
all heresies being secretly connected, as
in temper, so in certain primary princi-
ples. And, lastly, the Truth only is a
rm/doctrine, and therefore stable ; every
thing false is of a transitory nature and
has no stay, like reflections in a
stream, one opinion continually pass-
ing into another, and creations being but
the first stages of dissolution. Hence
so much is said in the Fathers of ortho-
doxy being a narrow way. Thus S. Gre-
gory speaks of the middle and " royal"
way. Orat 32. 6. also Damasc. contr.
Jacob, t. 1. p. 398. vid. also Leon. Ep.
85. 1. p. 1051. Ep. 129. p. 1254. " levis-
sima adjectionecorrumpitur." also Serin.
25. 1. p. 83. also Vigil, in Eutych. i.
init. Quasi inter duos latrones crucifigi-
tur Dominus, &c. Novat. Trin.30. vid.
the promise, " Their ears shall hear
a word behind thee, saying, This is
the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn
to the right hand, and when ye turn to
the left." Is. 30, 21.
c ^ugrdoxet. and so ziobes rtjf <ptXo%gt]-
(Kar/af, irifr. §. 53. He mentions
•r^offra.ffiuf tp'iXuv, §. 10. And so S.
Hilary speaks of the exemptions from
taxes which Constantius granted the
Clergy as a bribe to Arianize ;
" You concede taxes as Caesar, thereby
to invite Christians to a denial ; you
remit what is your own, that we may
lose what is God's." contr. Const.
10. And again, of resisting Constan-
tius as hostem blandientem, qui non
dorsa ceedit, sed ventrem palpat, non
What comes notfrom the Father is of the predicted Apostasy. 191
gain it ? who thus expounded to them when they were at CHAP.
school1 ? who told them, "Abandon the worship of the crea- — j-i_
tion, and then draw near and worship a creature and a note i.'
workd?" But if they themselves own that they have heard it
now for^jhe^irj^jdrnej how can they deny that this heresy is p. 84.
foreign, and not from our fathers2? But what is not from* p. 73,
our fathers, but has come to light in this day, how can it bej0^^
but that of which the blessed Paul has foretold, that in the*i l-2-
latter times some shall depart from the sound5 faith, giving* vyw
heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, in the hy- s0crat.
pocrisy of liars; cauterized in their own conscience, and*-?-
ill. J *
turning from the truth*? 14.
2. For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence dis- §. 9.
course with freedom of the religious Faith, and set it up as a
light upon its candlestick, saying : — Very Son of the Father,
natural and genuine, proper to His substance, Wisdom Only-
begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He ; not a
creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father's sub-
stance. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in substance44 '
with the very Father ; while other beings, to whom He said,
/ said ye are Gods, had this grace from the Father, only by
proscribit ad \itatn, sedditat in mortem, the Fathers to refer to the Oriental
mm caput gladio desecat, sed animam sects of the early centuries, who ful-
auro occidit. ibid. 5. vid. Constant, in filled one or other of those conditions
loc. Liberius says the same, Theod. which it specifies. It is quoted against
Hist. ii. 13. And S. Gregory Naz. the Marcionists by Clement. Strom, iii.
speaks of ^o^ufevs pZM.ovrt f<X«Xg'- 6. Of the Carpocratians apparently,
frov;. Orat. 21.21. On the other hand, Iren. User. i. 25. Epiph. Haer. 27. 5.
Ep. /Eg. 22. Athan. contrasts the Arians Of the Yalentinians, Epiph. Hser. 31.
with the Meletians, as not influenced by 34. Of the Montanists and others,
secular views. But it is obvious that ibid. 48. 8. Of the Saturnilians (ac-
there were, as was natural, two classes cording to Huet.) Origen in Matt. xiv.
of men in the heretical party ; — the 16. Of apostolic heretics, Cyril. Cat.
fanatical class who began the heresy iv. 27. Of Marcionites, Valentinians,
and were its real life, such as Arius, and Manichees, Chrysost. de Virg. 5.
, and afterwards the Anomoeans, in whom Of Gnostics and Manichees, Theod.
misbelief was a u mania;" and the Eu- Hser. ii. praef. Of Encratites, ibid. v.
sebians, who cared little for a theory of fin. Of Eutyches, Ep. Anon. 190. (apud
doctrine or consistency of profession, Garner. Diss.v. Theod. p. 901.) Pseudp-
compared with their own aggrandize- Justin seems to consider it fulfilled in
ment. With these must be counted the Catholics of the fifth century, as
numbers, who conformed to Arianism being Anti-pelagians. Qusest. 22. yid.
lest they should suffer temporal loss. Bened. note in loc. Besides Athanasius,
d vid. p. 3, note f.fin. This consider- no early author occurs to the writer of
ation, as might be expected, is insisted this, by whom it is referred to the Arians,
on by the Fathers, vid. Cyril. Dial. iv. except S. Alexander's Letter ap. Socr.
p. 51 1, &c. v. p. 566. Greg. Naz. 40. i. 6. and, if he may hazard the conjec-
42. Hil. Trin. viii. 28. Ambros. de ture, there is much in that letter like
fid. i. n. 69 and 104. Athan.'s own writing.
e This passage is commonly taken by
192 Contrast between Scripture doctrine and Arian.
Disc, participation1 of the Word, through the Spirit. For He is
p-^ — the expression of the Father's Person, and Light from Light,
De6cr. and Power, and very Image of the Father's substance. For
to° ^e kord has saic^ ^ ^rt* '*a*'* ***w ^> *rt^* 5mz
Father. And He ever was and is, and never was not.
p* 151' For the Father being everlasting, His Word and His Wisdom
2 P- 25> must be everlasting 2.
3. On the other hand, what have these persons to shew us
from the infamous Thalia ? Or, first of all, let them study it
themselves, and copy the tone of the writer; at least the
mockery which they will encounter from others may instruct
them how low they have fallen ; and then let them proceed to
explain themselves. For what can they say from it, but that
" God was not always a Father, but became so afterwards ;
the Son was not always, for He was not before His genera-
tion ; He is not from the Father, but He, as others, has come
into subsistence out of nothing; He is not proper to the
Father's substance, for He is a creature and work ?" And
" Christ is not very God, but He, as others, was made God
by participation ; the Son has not exact knowledge of the
Father, nor does -the Word see the Father perfectly; and
neither exactly understands nor knows the Father. He is
not the veiy and only Word of the Father, but is in name
only called Word and Wisdom, and is called by grace Son
and Power. He is not unalterable, as the Father is, but
alterable in nature, as the creatures, and He comes short of
perfect knowledge of the Father for comprehension." Wonderful
this heresy, not plausible even, but making speculations against
Him that is, that He be not, and every where putting forward
blasphemy for blessing ! Were any one, after inquiring into
both sides, to be asked, whether of the two he would follow
in faith, or whether of the two spoke fitly of God, — or rather
let them say themselves, these abetters of irreligion, what, if
a man be asked concerning God, (for the Word was God,) it
were fit to answer f. For from this one question the whole
case on both sides may be determined, what is fitting to
say, — He was, or He was not ; always, or before His birth ;
£ That is, " Let them tell us, is it such is the Word, viz. that He was
right to predicate this or to predicate from eternity or was created," &c. &c.
that of God, (of One who is God,) for
The Arians dared not avoiv their tenets. 193
eternal, or from this and from then ; true, or by adoption, and CHAP.
from participation and in idea1; to call Him one of things IUt'
generated, or to unite Him to the Father ; to consider Him i^C«y,
unlike the Father in substance, or like and proper to Him ; y|d-
TT. Orat. ii.
a creature, or Him through whom the creatures were gene- $. 38.
rated; that He is the Father's Word, or that there is another
Word beside Him, and that by this other He was generated,
and by another Wisdom; and that He is only named Wisdom
and Word, and is become a partaker of this Wisdom, and
second to it ?
4. Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus §. 10.
Christ as God and Son of the Father, this with which ye have
burst forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from
the Scriptures ? If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son,
you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the
Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the
Father and true Son, and God from God, and over all blessed Rom. 9,
for ever, is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out those
other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern of evil,
a store of all irreligion, into which, whoso falls, knoweth not Prov. 9,
that the dead are there, and that her guests are in the
depths of hell. This they know themselves, and in their
craft they conceal it, not having the courage to speak out,
but uttering something else2. For should they speak, a con-2 p. 10,
demnation would follow; and should they be suspected, p^^
proofs from Scripture will be cast3 at them from every side. Jote 8-
Wherefore, in their craft, as children of this world, after note f.'
feeding their so-called lamp from the wild olive, and fearing
lest it should soon be quenched, (for it is said, the light o/'Job 18,
the wicked shall be put out,) they hide it under the bushel4 of4Ep.^g>
their hypocrisy, and make a different profession, and boast of 18-
patronage of friends and authority of Constantius5, that what5 P. 5,
with their hypocrisy and their boasts, those who come to™^
them may be kept from seeing how foul their heresy is. note c-
Is it not detestable even in this, that it dares not speak out,
but is kept hid by its own friends, and fostered as serpents
are? for from what sources have they got together6 these 6«*«0/-
words ? or from whom have they received what they venture f "'"^
to say7? Not any one man can they specify who has supplied f- ^
it. For who is there in all mankind, Greek or Barbarian, note y!
o
194 Arianism not in Scripture, but from Satan.
who ventures to rank among creatures One who he confesses
the while to be God, and says, that He was not till He was
made ? or who is there, who to the God in whom he has
Matt, put faith, refuses to give credit, when He says, Iliis is My
Beloved Son, on the pretence that He is not a Son, but a
creature ? rather, such madness would rouse an universal
indignation. Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext ;
for it has been often shewn, and it shall be shewn now, that
their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles. Therefore, since
all that remains is to say that from the devil came their
1 P- 5> mania, (for of such opinions he alone is sower *,) proceed we
to resist him ; — for with him is our real conflict, and they are
but instruments ; — that, the Lord aiding us, and the enemy,
as he is wont, being overcome with arguments, they may be
put to shame, when they see him without resource who sowed
this heresy in them, and may learn though late, that, as being
2 P- ?9? Arians, they are not Christians2.
ref. 4,
CHAP. IV.
THAT THE SON IS ETERNAL AND INCREATE.
These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first proved by direct texts
of Scripture. Concerning the " eternal power" of God in Rom. i. 20.
which is shewn to mean the Son. Remarks on the Arian formula,
" Once the Son was not," its supporters not daring to speak of " a time
when the Son was not."
1. AT his suggestion then ye have maintained and ye think, CHAP.
that " there was once when the Son was not ;" this is the first IY'
cloke of your views of doctrine which has to be stripped off. Say *'
then what was once when the Son was not, O slanderous and
irreligious men a ? If ye say the Father, your blasphemy is but
greater ; for it is impious to say that He was " once," or to
signify Him by the word " once." For He is ever, and is
now, and as the Son is, so is He, and is Himself He that is,
and Father of the Son. But if ye say that the Son was once,
when He Himself was not, the answer is foolish and un-
meaning. For how could He both be and not be ? In this
difficulty, you can but answer, that there was a time, when the
Word was not; for your veiy adverb " once" naturally signifies
this. And your other, " The Son was not before His genera-
tion," is equivalent to saying, " There was once when He
was not," for both the one and the other signify that there is
a time before the Word.
2. Whence then this your discovery ? Why do ye, as the Ps. 2, i
heathen, rage, and imagine vain words against the Lord and
a Athan. observes that this formula ever, that it was the Father who " was''
of the Arians is a mere evasion to before the Son ? This was true, if
escape using the word " time." vid. " before" was taken, not to imply
also Cyril. Thesaur. iv. pp. 19, 20. time, but origination or beginning.
Else let them explain, — " There was," And in this sense the first verse of St.
what " when the Son was not?" or John's Gospel may be interpreted " In
what was before the Son? since He the Beginning," or Origin, i. e. in
Himself was before all times and ages, the Father " was the Word." Tr.us
which He created (supr, p. 30, note n.) Athan. himself understands that text,
Thus, if " when" be a word of time, Orat. iv. $. 1. vid. also Orat. iii. $. 9.
He it is who was {l when" He was not, Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106.
which is absurd. Did they mean, how- Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312.
196 Text 8 for the eternity of the Son.
Disc, against His Christ? for no holy Scripture has used such
— - — language of the Saviour, but rather " always" and " eternal"
John i, and " co-existent always with the Father." For, In the begin-
ning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. And in the Apocalypse he b thus speaks ;
Apoc.i, Who is and who was and who is to come. Now who can
rob " who is" and " who was" of eternity ?" This too in
confutation of the Jews hath Paul written in his Epistle to
Rom. 9, the Romans, Of whom as concerning the Jlesh Christ, who is
over all, God blessed for ever; while silencing the Greeks,
Rom. i,he has said, The invisible things of Him from the creation of
Ihe world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that
are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead ; and what
1 Cor. the Power of God isc, he teaches us elsewhere himself, Christ
1 ' 24' the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. Surely in these
words he does not designate the Father, as ye often whisper
one to another, affirming that the Father is His eternal
power. This is not so ; for he says not, " God Himself is
the power," but " His is the power." Very plain is it to
all that "His" is not "He;" yet not something alien but
rather proper to Him.
2 Cor. 3. Study too the context and turn to the Lord; now the
3,16.17. r tjiat Spirit d; and ye will see that it is the Son who
b ruli, X&yti. Our translation of the plied to it, vid. supr. p. 101, and Orat. ii.
New Testament renders such phrases §. 37.
similarly, " he." S^Xiyn" wherefore he d g. Athanasius observes, Serap. i,
saith," but in the margin " it." Eph. v. 4 — 7. that the Holy Ghost is never in
14. ttyxt KI£I TW$ \(&opns ovrc*. " he Scripture called simply " Spirit" with-
spake." Heb. iv. 4. And we may take in out the addition *' of God" or " of the
explanation "As the Holy Ghost saith, Father" or " from Me" or of the ar-
To-day,"&c. Heb.iii.7. Orunderstand tide, or of " Holy," or " Comforter/"
with Athan. S/aX$ygi<X{y&>yonauX«.infr. or " of truth," or unless He has been
$. 57. us tJ-ri* o 'ladvvns. Orat. iii. §. 30. spoken of just before. Accordingly this
vid. also iv. §. 31. On the other hand, text is understood of the third Person
11 as the Scripture hath said," John vii. in the Holy Trinity by Origen, contr.
42. " what saith the Scripture ?" Rom. Cels.vi. 70. Basil deSp. S. n.52. Pseudo-
iv. 3. "that the Scripture saith is vain," Athan. de comm. ess. 6. On the
James iv. 5. And so Athan. oTSsv other hand, the word #vivf*», " Spirit,"
•A Gilo. yt>a.<pn Xsyooffa. infr. §. 56. 'idos vy is used more or less distinctly for
Sun >y^,py . . tfitja-i. Orat. iv. $• 27. *.i>yst our Lord's Divine Nature, whether in
a y^apjj. de deer. §. 22. 0j?<m « <y^n. itself or as incarnate, in Rom. i. 4.
de Syn. §. 52. 1 Cor. xv. 45. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Hebr. ix.
c Athan. has so interpreted this text, 14. 1 Pet. iii. 18. John vi. 63, &c.
supr. p. 149. vid. Justinian's Comment Indeed the early Fathers speak as if
for its various interpretations. It was the " Holy Spirit" which came down
either a received interpretation, or had upon S. Mary might be considered the
been adduced at Niceea, for Asterius had Word. E. g. Tertullian against the
some years before these Discourses re- Valentinians, " If the Spirit of God
The So^ is the Father's Eternal Power and Godhead. 197
is signified. For after making mention of the creation, he CHAP.
naturally speaks of the Framer's Power as seen in it, which IV>
" & 1 O
Power, I say,, is the Word of God, by whom all things^'
were made. If indeed the creation is sufficient of itself
alone, without the Son, to make God known, see that you
'fall not into the further opinion that without the Son it
came to be. But if through the Son it came to be, and
in Him all things consist, it must follow that he who con- Col. i ,
templates the creation rightly, is contemplating also the
Word who framed it, and through Him begins to apprehend
the Father1. And if, as the Saviour also says, No one1 vid.
knoweth the Father, save the Son, and lie to whom the Son Gent!
shall reveal Him, and if on Philip's asking, Shew us the4^^-
Father, He said not, ic Behold the creation," but, He that 27.
hath seen, Me, hath seen the Father, reasonably doth Paul, j[olm14'
while accusing the Greeks of contemplating the harmony and
order of the creation without reflecting on the Framing Word
within it; (for the creatures witness to their own Framer;)
and wishing that through the creation they might apprehend
'the true God, and abandon their worship of it, reasonably
'hath He said, His eternal Power and Godhead, thereby Kom. J,
signifying the Son.
4. And whereas the sacred writers say, " Who exists before
the ages," and By whom He made the ages, they thereby jjeb. i
as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, 2-
even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if
Esaias says, The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends is. 40,
of the earth ; and Susanna said, O Everlasting God; and 28<
Sus. 42.
did not descend into the womb to par- Spiritus Sanctus est. Past. iii. 5. n. 5.
take in flesh from the womb, why did The same use of " Spirit" for the Word
He descend at all?" de earn. Chr. 19. or Godhead of the Word, is also found
vid. also ibid. 5 and 14. contr. Prax. in Tatian. adv. Gra?c. 7. Athenag. Leg.
26. Just. Apol. i. 33. Iren. Hser. v. 1. lO.Theoph. ad Autol.ii 10. Iren. Hair.
Cypr. Idol. Van. 6. (p. 19. Oxf. Tr.) iv. 36. Tertull. Apol. 23. Lact. Inst.
Lactant. Instit. iv. 12. vid. also Hilar. iv. 6. 8. Hilar. Trin. ix. 3. and 14.
Trin. ii. 27. Athan. xdyos Iv ™ rttufutrt Eustath. apud Theod. Eran. iii. p. 235.
sVxaTTs TO ffuftx. Scrap, i. 31 fin. iv <nj) Athan. de Incarn. 22. (if it be Athan. 's)
\iyof vv ro yfvtvfjLet. ibid. iii. 6. And contr. Apoll. i. 8. Apollinar. ap. Theod.
more distinctly even as late as S. Max- Eran.i.p. 71. and the Apollinarists pas-
imus, avrov civrt <r*o£eis ffvXXufiovirix <rov sim. Greg.Naz.Ep. 101. ad Cledon.p.85.
A.«V»v, xsxvnxi. t. 2. p. 309. The ear- Ambros.tncarn. 63. Severian.ap. Theod.
liest ecclesiastical authorities are S. Eran.ii.p.167. Vid. Grot.ad Marc.ii.8.
Ignatius ad Smyrn. init. and S. Hernias Bull. Def. F. N. i. 2. $.5. Coustant.
(even though his date were A.D. 150.) Prgcf. in Hilar. 57, &c. Montfaucon
who also says plainly, Filius autem in Athan. Serap. iv. 19.
198 Further texts for the eternity of the Son.
Disc. Baruch wrote, / will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,
— — and shortly after, My hope is in the Everlasting, that He
20. 22! will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;
yet forasmuch as the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says,
Hebr. Who being the radiance of His glory and the Expression of
p'afoo His Person ; and David too in the eighty -ninth Psalm, And
the brightness of the Lord he upon us, and, In Thy Light
9. ' shall we see Light, who has so little sense as to doubt of the
i supr. eternity of the Son1 ? for when did man see light without the
5|* 20> brightness of its radiance, that he may say of the Son,
" There was once, when He was not," or " Before His
generation He was not."
5. And the words addressed to the Son in the hundred
Ps. 143, and forty-fourth Psalm, Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all
ages, forbid any one to imagine any interval at all in which
the Word did not exist. For if every interval is measured
2«/«y«» by ages, and of all the ages2 the Word is King and Maker,
therefore, whereas no interval at all exists prior to Hime, it
3 uluviat were madness to say, " There was once when the Everlasting3
was not," and " From nothing is the Son."
John 6. And whereas the Lord Himself says, / am the Truth, not
John " I became the Truth ;" but always, / am, — 1 am the Shep-
John4 nerd, — / am the Light, — and again, Call ye Me not, Lord
8, 12. and Master ? and ye call Me well, for so I am, who, hearing
I3f°3. such language from God, and Wisdom, and Word of the
Father, speaking of Himself, will any longer hesitate about
its truth, and not forthwith believe that in the phrase / am,
is signified that the Son is eternal and unoriginate ?
§. 13. 7. It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare
the Son's eternity ; it is equally plain from what follows that
the Arian phrases " He was not," and " before" and " when,"
are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures. Moses,
for instance, in his account of the generation of our system,
Gen. 2, says, And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth,
5.
e Vid. p. 30, note n. The subject is Angels. This had been a philosophical
treated at length in Greg. Nyss. contr. distinction, Timseus says, tixut ttrn
Eunom. i. t. 2. Append, p. 93— 101. x{bot *% «yi»w$w #£«»«,"& alum fava.-
vid. also Arnbros. de Fid. i. 8—11. As •yoetoofut. vicl. also Fhilon. Quod Deus
time measures the material creation, Immut. 6. Euseb. Laud. C. p. 501.
so " ages" were considered to measure Naz. Or. 38. 8.
the immaterial, as the duration of
Scripture uses " was not before" of creatures. 199
and every herb of the field before it grew ; for the Lord God CHAP.
had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not —IY' .
a man to till the ground. And in Deuteronomy, When the'Deut.
Most High divided to the nations. And the Lord said in His 2' 8*
own Person1, If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice because I said,1^ «*«•
/ go unto the Father, for My Father is greater than /.j^
And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it 14> 28-
is come to pass, ye might believe. And concerning' the crea-
tion He says by Solomon, Or ever the earth was, when Prov. 8,
there were no depths^ I was brought forth ; when there23'
were no fountains abounding with water. Before the moun-
tains were settled, before the hills, was I brought forth.
And Before Abraham ivas, I am. And concerning Jeremias John
He says, Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee. j'e^8j' 5
And David in the Psalm says, Before the mountains werePs.90,1.
brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made,
Thou art God from everlasting and world without end.
And in Daniel, Susanna cried out with a loud voice and$u*.42,
said, O everlasting God, that knowest the secrets, and knowest
all things before they be. Thus it appeal's that the phrases
" once was not," and " before it came to be," and " when,"
and the like, belong to things generate and creatures, which
come out of nothing, but are alien to the Word. But if such
terms are used in Scripture of things generate, but " ever" of
the Word, it follows, O ye God's enemies, that the Son did not
come out of nothing, nor is in the number of generated things
at all, but is the Father's Image and Word eternal, never having
not been, but being ever, as the eternal Radiance2 of a Light2 p. 39,
which is eternal. Why imagine then times before the Son ? nc
or wherefore blaspheme the Word as after times, by whom
even the ages were made3? for how did time or age at all3p. los,
subsist when the Word, as you say, had not appeared, through
whom all things w&re made and without whom not one things,
was made ? Or why, when you mean time, do you not plainly
say, " a time was when the Word was not ?" but you drop
the word " time" to deceive the simple, while you do not at
all conceal your own feeling, nor, even if you did, could you
escape discovery. For you still simply mean times, when
you say, " There was when He was not," and " He was
not before His generation."
CHAP. V.
SUBJECT CONTINUED.
Objecti on, that the Son's eternity makes Him co-ordinate with the Father,
introduces the subject of His Divine Sonship, as a second proof of His
eternity. The word Son is introduced in a secondary, but is to be under-
stood in a real sense. Since all things partake of the Father in partaking
of the Son, He is the whole participation of the Father, that is, He is
the Son by nature ; for to be wholly participated is to beget.
Disc. 1. WHEN these points are thus proved, their profaneness
goes further. "If there never was, when the Son was not," say
* they, "but He is eternal, and co-exists with the Father, call
Him no more the Father's Son, but brother3." O insensate
and contentious 1 For if we said only that He was eternally
with the Father, and riot His Son, their pretended scruple would
have some plausibility; but if, while we say that He is eternal,
we also confess Him to be Son from the Father, how can He that
is begotten be considered brother of Him who begets ? And
if our faith is in Father and Son, what brotherhood is there
between them ? and how can the Word be called brother of
Him whose Word He is ? This is not an objection of men
really ignorant, for they comprehend how the truth lies ; but
it is a Jewish pretence, and that from those who, in Solomon's
Prov. words, through desire separate themselves from the truth.
18' 1< For the Father and the Son were not generated from some
• via. de pre-existing origin1, that we may account Them brothers, but
Syn. §,
152 a That this was an objection urged Anomoean arguments as he heard them
by Eunomius, has already been men- reported, vid. de Syn. 1. c. where he
tioned from S. Cyril, supr. p. 151, note says, " they say, a* you have written."
z. It is implied also in the Apology of §. 51. 'Avoptio; XKT oltrietv is mentioned
the former, §. 24. and in Basil, contr. infr.§.!7. As the Arians here object that
Eunom. ii. 28. Aetius was in Alex- the First and Second Persons of the
andria with George of Cappadocia, Holy Trinity are a3iAi«2, so did they
A.D. 356—8. and Athan. wrote these say the same in the course of the con-
Discourses in the latter year, as the troversy of the Second and Third, vid.
de Syn. at the end of the next. Ifc is Athan. Scrap, i. 15. iv. 2.
probable then that he is alluding to the
Oar Lord eternal, because the Son.
201
the Father is the Origin of the Son and begat Him ; and the CHAP.
Father is Father, and not the Son of any ; and the Son is Son,
and not brother.
2. Further, if He is called the eternal offspring11 of the Father,
He is rightly so called. For never was the substance of the
Father imperfect !, that what is proper to it should be added1 ««/.&
afterwards2; nor, as man from man, has the Son been be- 8 «*•'«•««-
gotten, so as to be later than His Father's existence, but He vjd!?p.
is God's offspring, and as being proper Son of God, who is3^ note
ever, He exists eternally. For, whereas it is proper to men
to beget in time, from the imperfection of their nature3, God's3 infr.
offspring is eternal, for His nature is ever perfect0. If thenjupr>
He is not a Son, but a work made out of nothing, they have p- 19,
but to prove it ; and then they are at liberty, as if speculating
about a creature, to cry out, " There was once when He was
In other words, by the Divine
is not meant an act but an eter-
nal and unchangeable fact, in the Divine
Essence. Arius, not admitting this,
objected at the outset of the contro-
versy to the phrase " always Father,
alwaysSon,"Theod.Hist.i.4.p.749.and
Eunomius argues that, " if the Son is co-
eternal with the Father, the Father was
never such in act, mgyw , but was K^yos ."
Cyril. Thesaur. v. p. 41. S. Cyril an-
swers tba.t works, igya, are made ?|«^i»,
from without ; but that our Lord, as St.
Athanasius here says, is neither a
" work" nor " from without." And
hence he says elsewhere that, while
men are fathers first in posse then
in act, God is ^uvapti TI xcti itipytia
vct7ri£. Dial. 2. p. 458. (vid. supr. p. 65.
note m.) Victorinus in like manner says,
that God is potentia et actione Deus
sed in seterna. ; Adv. Ar. i. p. 202. and
he quotes S. Alexander, speaking ap-
parently in answer to Arius, of a sem-
per generans generatio. And Arius
scoffs at aifytvvris and uysviwreyivwi.
Theod. Hist. i. 4. p. 749. And Origen
had said, o trurn^ ««i ymara/. ap. Routh.
Reliq. t. 4. p. 304. and S. Dioaysius
calls Him the Radiance, &vet£%n xul
uuysvif. Athan. S. D. 15. S. Augustine
too says, Semper gignit Pater, et semper
nascitur Filius. Ep. 238. n. 24. Petav. de
Trin. ii. 5. n. 7. quotes the follow-
ing passage from Theodorus Abucara,
" Since the Son's generation does but
signify His having His existence from
the Father, which He has ever, there-
fore He is ever begotten. For it be-
came Him, who is properly (uvgtus) the
Son, ever to be deriving His existence
from the Father, and not as we who
derive its commencement only. In us
generation is a way to existence; in
the Son of God it denotes the existence
itself; in Him it has not existence for its
end, but it is itself an end, TSX»J, and
is perfect, TiX»a»." Opusc. 26.
c vid. foregoing note. A similar pas-
sage is found in Cyril. Thesaur. v.
p. 42. Dial. ii. fin. This was retorting
the objection ; the Arians said, " How
can God be ever perfect, who added to
Himself a Son ?" Athan. answers,
" How can the Son not be eternal,
since God is ever perfect?" vid. Greg.
Nyssen. contr. Eunom. Append, p. 142.
Cyril. Thesaur. x. p. 78. As to the
Son's perfection, Aetius objects ap.
Epiph. Heer. 76. p. 925, 6, that growth
and consequent accession from without
were essentially involved in the idea of
Sonship ; whereas S. Greg. Naz. speaks
of the Son as not arthit <rt>drsgot, tiro.
T{Xi/«v; aWsg vopos fnt fifttrips ytvirtvf.
Orat. 20. 9 fin. In like manner, S.
Basil argues against Eunomius, that
the Son is <r«Ai/«f, because He is the
Image, not as if copied, which is a
gradual work, but as a ^a^axTWj, or
impression of a seal, or as the know-
ledge communicated from master to
scholar, which comes to the latter and
exists in him perfect, without being lost
to the former, contr. Eunom. ii. 16
fin.
2Q'2lfourLordisnotfrom the Father's substance, He is not a Son.
Disc, not;" for things which are generate were not, and came
- — to be. But if He is Son. as the Father says, and the
Scriptures proclaim, and " Son" is nothing else than what is
generated from the Father ; and what is generated from the
Father is His Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance ; what is to
be said but that, in maintaining " Once the Son was not,"
they rob God of His Word, like plunderers, and openly
predicate of Him that He was once without His proper Word
an^ Wisdom, and that the Light was once without radiance,
P. 25, and the Fountain was once barren l and dry 2 ? For though they
°«*r* pretend alarm at the name of time, because of those who re-
vnttn, proach them with it, and say, that He was before times, yet
note z. whereas they assign certain periods, in which they imagine He
taftf- was not, they are most irreligious still, as equally suggesting
times, and imputing to God's nature3 an absence of His
rational Word*.
§. 15. 3. But if on the other hand, while they acknowledge with us
the name of " Son," from an unwillingness to be publicly and
generally condemned, they deny that the Son is the proper
offspring of the Father's substance, on the ground that this
Jde^ must imply parts and divisions5 ; what is this but to deny that
$.10,11. He is very Son, and only in name to call Him Son at all?
P^1G - And is it not a grievous error, to have material thoughts
about what is immaterial, and because of the weakness of their
proper nature to deny what is natural and proper to the
p"i30, Father? Jt does but remain6, that they should deny Him
note c.' also, because they understand not how God is7, and what the
§.123.' Father is, now that, foolish men, they measure by themselves
the Offspring of the Father. And persons in such a state
of mind as to consider that there cannot be a Son of God,
demand our pity; but they must be interrogated and exposed
for the chance of bringing them to their senses.
4. If then, as you say, " the Son is from nothing," and " was
not before His generation," He, of course, as well as others,
must be called Son, and God, and Wisdom only by par-
ticipation ; for thus all other creatures consist, and by sanc-
tification are glorified. You have to toll us then, of what He is
partaker8' AH other thin£s Partake the Spirit, but He, ac-
,,; 14^ ' cording to you, of what is He partaker ? of the Spirit ? Nay,
rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself
To be begotten is to participate wholly. 203
says ; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sane- CHAP.
tified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He par- '
takes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is par-
ticipated, what is it or whence1 ? If it be something external l p. is,
provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the110
Father, but of what is external to Him ; and no longer will
He be even second after the Father, since He has before Him
this other ; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but
of that, as partaking which, He has been called Son and God.
And if this be extravagant and irreligious, when the Father
says, This is My Beloved Son, and when the Son says that Matt.
God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is ' '
not external, but from the substance of the Father. And as
to this again, if it be other than the substance of the Son, an
equal extravagance will meet us ; there being in that case
something between this that is from the Father and the
substance of the Son, whatever that be d.
5. Such thoughts then being evidently extravagant and un- §. 16.
true, we are driven to say that what is from the substance of
the Father, and proper to Him, is entirely the Son ; for it
is all one to say that God is wholly participated, and that He
begets ; and what does begetting signify but a Son ? And
thus of the Son Himself, all things partake according to the
grace of the Spirit coining from Him2; and this shews thatthe2deDecr.
Son Himself partakes of nothing, but what is partaken from the ^ 57
d Here is taught us the strict unity of by Aetius, Epiph. Hser. 76. 10. Thus
the Divine Substance. When it is said Athan. says, de Deer. §. 30. " He has
that the First Person of the Holy Trinity given the authority of all things to the
communicates divinity to the Second, it Son, and, having given it, is once more>
is meant that that one Essence which is <r«;u», the Lord of all things through
the Father, also is the Son. Hence the the Word." supr. p. 55. Again, " the
force of the word opoovtriov, which was in Father having given all things to
consequence accused of Sabellianism, the Son, has all things once again,
but was distinguished from it by the vrciXiv. ..for the Son's Godhead is the
particle c>au, " together, "which implied Godhead of the Father." Orat.iii.§.36fin.
a difference as well as unity; — whereas Hence fi \K reu varies t'ls rot u'tot fatrtit
Tttlroovytfi or ffuvouonov implied, with the Kpfivfiut xa) a%iw(>i<rus rwy%tini. Expos.
Sabellians, an identity or a confusion, t . 2. vid. supr. p. 145, note r. " Vera
The Arians, on the other hand, as in the et seterna substantia, in se tota per-
instance of Eusebius, &c. supr. p. 63, manens, totam se coseternse veritati
note g. p. 116, note h. considered the nativitatis indulsit." Fulgent. Resp. 7.
Father and the Son twoatxriai. The Ca- And S.Hilary, "Filius in Patreestet in
tholic doctrine is that, though the Divine Filio Pater, non per transfusionem, re-
Substance is both the Father Ingenerate fusionemque mutuam, sed per viventis
and also the Only-begotten Son, it is not naturae perfectam nativitatem." Trin.
itself a.yivvY)Tos or ym»jT»j; which was vii. 51.
the objection urged against the Catholics
204 Generation does not imply division or affection of substance.
Disc. Father, is the Son; for, as partaking of the Son Himself, we
__L_are said to partake of God; and this is what Peter said,
2 Pet. that ye may be partakers1 in a divine nature ; as says too
/'J^/the Apostle, Know ye not, that ye are a temple of God?
i Cor. ancj we are the temple of the Living God. And beholding
the Son, we seethe Father; for the thought2 and comprehen-
vid. de sjon Of ^e gon? is knowledge concerning the Father, because
48 fin. He is His proper offspring from His substance. And since to
be partaken no one of us would ever call affection or division of
God's substance, (for it has been shewn and acknowledged that
God is participated, and to be participated is the same thing
as to beget;) therefore that which is begotten is neither affec-
tion nor division of that blessed substance. Hence it is not
incredible that God should have a Son, the Offspring of His
own substance ; nor do we imply affection or division of
God's substance, when we speak of " Son" and " Offspring ;"
but rather, as acknowledging the genuine, and true, and
Only -begotten of God, so we believe.
6. If then, as we have stated and are shewing, what is the
Offspring of the Father's substance be the Son, we cannot
3 supr. hesitate, rather, we mustbe certain, that the same 3 is the Wisdom
note i' an(^ Word of the Father, in and through whom He creates
p. 41, and makes all things; and His Brightness too, in whom He
note 6
enlightens all things, and is revealed to whom He will ; and
His Expression and Image also, in whom He is contemplated
Johnio, and known, wherefore He and His Father are one. and
orv
whoso looketh on Him, looketh on the Father; and the
Christ, in whom all things are redeemed, and the new creation
wrought afresh. And on the other hand, the Son being such
Offspring, it is not fitting, rather it is full of peril, to say, that
He is a work out of nothing, or that He was not before
His generation. For he who thus speaks of that which is
proper to the Father's substance, already blasphemes the
* P. 3, Father Himself4 ; since he really thinks of Him what He falsely
imagines of His offspring.
CHAP. VI.
SUBJECT CONTINUED.
Third proof of the Son's eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of His
consubstantiality ; as the Creator; as One of the Blessed Trinity; as
Wisdom; as Word; as Image. If the Son a perfect Image of the
Father, why is He not a Father also ? because God, being perfect, is
not the origin of a race. Only the Father a Father because the
Only Father, only the Son a Son because the Only Son. Men are not
really fathers and really sons, but shadows of the True. The Son does
not become a Father, because He has received from the Father, to be
immutable and ever the same.
1. THIS thought is of itself a sufficient refutation of the CHAP.
Arian heresy ; however, its heterodoxy will appear also from — — '—
the following: — If God be Maker and Creator, and create His ^'
works through the Son, and we cannot regard things which
come to be, except as being through the Word, is it not
blasphemous, God being Maker, to say, that His Framing
Word and His Wisdom once was not ? it is the same as
saying, that God is not Maker, if He had not His proper
Framing Word which is from Him, but that That by which
He frames, accrues to Him from without1, and is alien from1?-43*
Him, and unlike2 in substance. 2
2. Next, let them tell us this,— or rather learn from it
how irreligious they are in saying " Once He was not,"
and, " He was not before His generation ;" — for if the
Word is not with the Father from everlasting, the Trinity 33
is not everlasting; but a One4 was first, and afterwards by
addition it became a Three5; and so as time went on, it seems, 5
what we know concerning God grew and took shape6. Andflvkl.
further, if the Son is not proper offspring of the Father's
substance, but of nothing has come to be, then of nothing the
Trinity consists, and once there was not a Three, but a One ;
and a Three once with deficiency, and then complete ; deficient,
before the Son was generated, complete when He had come
206 //' the Son not eternal, the Holy Trinity not eternal.
DISC, to be ; and henceforth a thing generated is reckoned with
Im the Creator, and what once was not has divine worship and
1 p. 191, glory with Him who was ever1. Nay, what is more serious
s d> still, the Three is discovered to be unlike Itself, consisting
of strange and alien natures and substances. And this, in
other words, is saying, that the Trinity has a generated
consistence. What sort of a worship then is this, which is not
even like itself, but is in process of completion as time goes
on, and is now not thus, and then again thus ? For probably
it will receive some fresh accession, and so on without limit,
since at first and at starting it took its consistence by way of
accessions. And so undoubtedly it may decrease on the con-
trary, for what is added plainly admits of being subtracted.
§. 18. 3. But this is not so: perish the thought; the'Three is not
generated ; but there is an eternal and one Godhead in a
Three, and there is one Glory of the Holy Three. And ye pre-
sume to divide it into different natures ; the Father being
eternal, yet ye say of the Word which is seated by Him, " Once
He was not ;" and, whereas the Son is seated by the Father, yet
ye think to place Him far from Him. The Three is Creator
and Framer, and ye fear not to degrade It to things which are
from nothing ; ye scruple not to equal servile beings to the
nobility of the Three, and to rank the King, the Lord of Sabaoth,
2deDecr.with subjects2. Cease this confusion of things unassociable,
p'. 56. or rather of things which are not with Him who is. Such
statements do not glorify and honour the Lord, but the
reverse ; for he who dishonours the Son, dishonours also the
Father. For if theological doctrine is now perfect in a
Trinity, and this is the true and only worship of Elim, and
this is the good and the truth, it must have been always
so, unless the good and the truth be something that came
after, and theological doctrine is completed by additions.
I say, it must have been eternally so ; but if not eternally,
not so at present either, but at present so, as you suppose it
was from the beginning, — I mean, not a Trinity now. But
such heretics no Christian would bear ; it belongs to
Greeks, to introduce a generated Trinity, and to level It with
things generate; for these do admit of deficiencies and
additions; but the faith of Christians acknowledges the
blessed Trinity as unalterable and perfect and ever what It
Names " Wisdom? "Fountain? " Word? imply eternity. 207
was, neither adding to It what is more, nor imputing to It CHAP.
any loss, (for both ideas are irreligious,) and therefore it dis —
sociates it from all things generated, and it guards as
indivisible and worships the unity of the Godhead Itself;
and shuns the Arian blasphemies, and confesses and acknow-
ledges that the Son was ever; for He is eternal, as is the
Father, of whom He is the Eternal Word, — to which subject
let us now return again.
4. If God be, and be called, the Fountain of wisdom and §. 19.
life, — as He says by Jeremiah, TJiey have forsaken Me the Foun- Jer. 2,
tain of living waters; and again, A glorious high throne from je'r ^
the beginning, is the £>/«£<? of our sanctuary; O Lord, the^'
Ho})e of Israel, all that forsake Thee shall be ashamed, and
they that depart from Me shall be written in the earth)
because they have forsaken the Lord, the Fountain of living
waters ; and in the book of Baruch it is written, Tliou hast Bar. 3,
forsaken the Fountain of wisdom, — this implies that life and '
wisdom are not foreign to the Substance of the Fountain, but
are proper to It, nor were at anytime without existence1, but1 in/-
were always. Now the Son is all this, who says, lam the Life, j"J*T*
and, / Wisdom dwell with prudence. Is it not then irreligious 14» 6-
to say, " Once the Son was not ?" for it is all one with saying, ]2r.OV' 3'
" Once the Fountain was dry, destitute of Life and Wisdom."
But a fountain it would then cease to be ; for what begetteth
not from itself, is not a fountain2. What a load of extra- 2 P- 202>
rpf 9
vagance ! for God promises that those who do His will shall
be as a fountain which the water fails not, saying by Isaiah
the prophet. And the Lord shall satisfy thy soul in drought, Isa. 587
and make thy bones fat ; and thou shalt be like a watered
garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not. And
yet these, whereas God is called and is a Fountain of wisdom,
dare to insult Him as barren3 and void of His proper Wisdom. 3 «ya»«»
But their doctrine is false ; truth witnessing that God is the
eternal Fountain of His proper Wisdom ; and, if the Foun-
tain be eternal, the Wisdom also must needs be eternal. For
in It were all things made, as David says in the Psalm, In Ps. 104,
Wisdom hast Thou made them all; and Solomon says, 7%£pr'ov<3?
Lord by Wisdom hath formed the earth, by understanding 19-
hath He established the heavens.
5. And this Wisdom is the Word, and by Him, as John says,
208 Our Lord not one of"alF thing*.
Disc, all things were made, and without Him was made not one
T- thing*. And this Word is Christ; for there is One God, the
1 *' Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and
i Cor. Qne J^ord Jesus Christ, through whom are all firings, and
we through Him. And if all things are through Him, He
Himself is not to be reckoned with that " all." For he who
1 vid. dares1 to call Him, through whom are all things, one of that
d/Trin " a^?" surelj w^^ have like speculations concerning God, from
ii. 12. whom are all. But if he shrinks from this as extravagant, and
excludes God from that all, it is but consistent that he should
also exclude from that all the Only-Begotten Son, as being
proper to the Father's substance. And, if He be not one of
3 de the all2, it is sin to say conceming Him, " He was not," and
c 3°0r' u He was not before His generation." Such words may be
SUP/- used of the creatures; but as to the Son, He is such as the
Father is, of whose substance He is proper Offspring, Word,
3deDecr.and Wisdom3. For this is proper to the Son, as regards the
p 28*. Father, and this shews that the Father is proper to the Son;
that we may neither say that God was ever without His Rational
4 fat- Wordb, nor that the Son was non-existing4. For wherefore a
a The words u that was made" which as He is wise ; which would be a kind
end this verse were omitted by the of Sabellianism. But, whereas their op-
ancient citers of it, as Irensus, Cle- ponents said that He was but called Word
ment, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, andWisdomer/fertheattribute,(vid.supr.
nay, Augustine ; but because it was p. 95, note c,) they said that such titles
abused by the Eunomians, Macedoni- marked, not only a typical resemblance
ans, &c. as if derogatory to the divinity to the attribute, but so full a corre-
of the Holy Spirit, it was quoted in full, spondence and (as it were) coincidence
as by Epiphanius, Ancor. 75. who in nature with it, that whatever relation
goes so far as to speak severely of that attribute had to God, such in
the ancient mode of citation, vid. Fa- kind had the Son; — that the attribute
brie, and Routh, ad Hippol. contr. was His symbol, and not His mere
Noet. 12. archetype; that our Lord was eternal
b aXflyov. vid. supr. p. 25, note c, and proper to God, because that attri-
where other instances are given from bute was, which was His title, vid.
Athan. and Dionysius of Rome; also Athan. Ep. jEg. 14. that our Lord was
p. 2, note e. vid. also Orat. iv. 2. 4. that Essential Reason and Wisdom, —
Sent. D. 23. Origen, supr. p. 48. not by which the Father is wise, but
Athenag. Leg. 10. Tat. contr. Grsec. without which the Father was jtolwise; —
5. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10. Hipp, contr. not, that is, in the way of a formal cause,
Noet. 10. Nyssen. coutr. Eunom. vii. but in fact. Or, whereas the Father
p. 215. viii. pp. 230,240. Orat. Catech. Himself is Reason and Wisdom, the
1. Naz. Orat. 29. 17 fin. Cyril. Thesaur. Son is the necessary result of that Rea-
xiv. p. 145. (vid. Petav. de Trin. son and Wisdom, so that, to say that
vi. 9.) It must not be supposed from there was no Word, would imply there
these instances that the Fathers meant was no Divine Reason ; just as a ra-
that our Lord was literally what is diance implies a light; or, as Petavius
called the attribute of reason or wisdom remarks, 1. c. quoting the words which
in the Divine Essence, or in other follow shortly after in the text, the
words that He was God merely viewed eternity of the Original implies the
If our Lord the Image of the Father, He isfrom His substance. 209
Son, if not from Him ? or wherefore Word and Wisdom, if not CHAP.
ever proper to Him ? When then was God without Him who VL
is proper to Him ? or how can a man consider that which is §' 20*
proper, as foreign and alien1 in substance? for other things,1 «>->.«-
according to the nature of things generate, are without likeness Jffl"w"
in substance with the Maker ; but are external to Him, made suPr_-
by the Word at His grace and will, and thus admit of ceasing ?ef. i. '
to be, if it so pleases Him who made them ° ; for such is the
nature of things generate2. But as to what is proper to the2infr-
Father's substance, (for this we have already found to be the Sote i.'
Son,) what daring is it and irreligion to say that " This comes
from nothing," and that " It was not before generation," but
was adventitious3, and can at some time cease to be again ? 3l*/<r«/*-
6. Let a person only dwell upon this thought, and he will p 3**'
discern how the perfection and the plenitude of the Father's note v-
substance is impaired by this heresy; however, he will see its
extravagance still more clearly, if he considers that the Son
is the Image and Radiance of the Father, and Expression,
and Truth. For if, when Light exists, there be withal its
Image, viz. Radiance, and a Subsistence existing, there be of
it the entire Expression, and a Father existing, there be
His Truth, viz. the Son4; let them consider what depths4 "the
•of irreligion they fall into, who make time the measure om^tted
of the Image and Countenance of the Godhead. For if the bY
. Montf.
Son was not before His generation, Truth was not always in
God, which it were a sin to say; for, since the Father was,
there was ever in Him the Truth, which is the Son, who says,
lam the Truth. And the Subsistence existing, of course there Johni4,
was forthwith its Expression and Image ; for God's Image is
not delineated from without d, but God Himself hath begotten
eternity of the Image ; <rtjs vvofTKftus is in, and one with, the Father, who
wra^aiATjtf, foivruf tv$us dttti 3s? rov has neither beginning nor end. On
^K^KKT^U x.a} T»JV tixo'vx returns, §. 20. the question of the " will of God" as it
vid. also ini'r. §. 31. de Deer. §. 13. p. affects the doctrine, vid. Orat. iii.
21. §. 20. 23. pp. 35. 40. Theod. Hist. §. 59, &c.
i. 3. p. 737. d Athan. argues from the very name
c This was but the opposite aspect Image for our Lord's eternity. An
of the tenet of our Lord's consubstanti- Image, to be really such, roust be an
ality or eternal generation. For if He expression from the Original, not an
came into being at the will of God, by external and detached imitation, vid.
the same will He might cease to be; supr.note b.infr. §. 26. p 217. Hence S.
but if His existence is unconditional Basil, " He is an Image not made with
and necessary, as God's attributes the hand, or a work of art, but a living
might be, then as He had no begin- Image," &c. supr. p. 106, note d. vid.
ning, so can He have no end ; for He alsoeontr.Eunom.iU6,l7.Epiph.Haer.
210 The title " Image" implies eternity.
Disc, it; in which seeing Himself, He has delight, as the Son Himself
Prov' g says, / was His delight. When then did the Father not see
so. ' Himself in His own Image ? or when had He not delight,
that a man should dare to say, "The Image is out of no-
thing," and " The Father had not delight before the Image
was generated ?" and how should the Maker and Creator see
Himself in a created and generated substance ? for such as is
§. 21. the Father, such must be the Image. Proceed we then to
consider the attributes of the Father, and we shall come to
know whether this Image is really His. The Father is eternal,
immortal, powerful, light, King, Sovereign, God, Lord, Creator,
and Maker. These attributes must be in the Image, to make
Johni4, it true that he that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father.
If the Son be not all this, but, as the Arians consider, a thing
generate, and not eternal, this is not a true Image of the
Father, unless indeed they give up shame, and go on to say,
that the title of Image, given to the Son, is not a token of a
1 de similar substance e, but His name * only. But this, on the other
i6*Cpp. ' hand, O ye Christ's enemies, is not an Image, nor is it an
25. 26. Expression. For what is the likeness of what is out of no-
thing to Him who brought what was nothing into being? or
how can that which is not, be like Him that is, being short of
Him in once not being, and in its having its place among
things generate ?
7. However, such the Arians wishing Him to be, have con-
trived arguments such as this ; — " If the Son is the Father's
2fc<»«f offspring and image, and is like in all things2 to the Father,
*«lr«, then it: necessarily holds that as He is begotten, so He
p. 115, begets, and He too becomes father of a son. And again, he
note e. . .
infr. §. who is begotten from Him, begets in his turn, and so on
40.
p. 237.
76, 3. Hilar. Trin. vii. 41 fin. Origen ob- Discourses,
serves that man, on the contrary, is an e J^o/a; ovrtuf. And so §. 20. init.
example of an external or improper t^etav xar otxrw, and 3ftu», rvs ov*iaf.
imageofGod.Periarch,i.2.§.6.Itmight §. 26. fyous K^ ow«v, iii. 26. and
have been more direct to have argued tyoug xetrcc rJ|y «&«'«» r»u *««Wf . Ep.
from the name of Image to our Lord's JEg. 17. Also Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2.
consubstantiahty rather than eternity, Considering what he says in the de
as, e. g. S. Gregory Naz. " He is Syn. $. 38, &c. supr. p. 136, note g,
Image as one m substance, ^MJO*, in controversy with the Semi-arians
... tor this is the nature of an a year or two later, this use of their for-
^Td0 be/c°Py°f the archetype." mula, in preference to the Ifto.tw.
Orat. 36. vid , also de Deer. §. 20, 23. (vid. foregoing note,) deserve our at-
supra, pp.35, 40. but for whatever reason tention.
Athan. avoids the word Iftoovtitv in these
Why the Father only a Father and the Son only a Son, -211
without limit; for this is to make the Begotten like Him that CHAP.
begat Him." Authors of blasphemy, verily, are these foes of —
God1 ! who, sooner than confess that the Son is the Father's
Image f, conceive material and earthly ideas concerning the*
Father Himself, ascribing to Him severings2 and effluences32
and influences. If then God be as man, let Him be also a f{
parent as man, so that His Son should be father of another, 3
and so in succession one from another, till the series they note q. '
imagine grows into a multitude of gods4. But if God be not4 p. is.
as man, as He is not, we must not impute to Him the
attributes of man. For brutes and men, after a Creator has
begun them, are begotten by succession ; and the son, having
been begotten of a father who was a son, becomes accordingly
in his turn a father to a son, in inheriting from his father
that by which he himself has come to be. Hence in such
instances there is not, properly speaking, either father or
son, nor do the father and the son stay in their respective
characters, for the son himself becomes a father, being son
of his father, but father of his son. But it is not so in
1 The objection is this, that, if our
Lord be the Father's Image, He ought
to resemble Him in being a Father.
S. Athanasius answers that God is not
as man ; with us a son becomes a
father because our nature is ftutrri,
transitive and without stay, even shift-
ing and passing on into new forms and
relations ; but that God is perfect and
ever the same, what He is once that
He continues to be ; God the Father
remains Father, and God the Son re-
mains Son. Moreover men become
fathers by detachment and transmission,
and what is received is handed on in
a succession ; whereas the Father, by
imparting Himself wholly, begets the
Son ; and a perfect nativity finds its
termination in itself. The Son has not
a Son, because the Father has not a
Father. Thus the Father is the only
true Father, and the Son only true Son ;
the Father only a Father, the Son only
a Son ; being really in Their Persons
what human fathers are but hy office,
character, accident, and name ; vid.supr.
p. 18, note o. And since the Father is
unchangeable as Father, in nothing
does the Son more fulfil the idea of a
perfect Image than in being unchange-
able too. Thus S. Cyril, also Thesaur.
10. p. 124. And this perhaps may
illustrate a strong and almost startling
statement of some of the Greek Fathers,
that the First Person in the Holy
Trinity, considered as Father, is not
God. E. g. tl £» 6ibs o vies, elx i-fti
vto's' oftoiuf xu,} o *«T»J£, oux \ieti crar»^,
fads' aXX' lifti ovffia. ra/aJi, tig ffrt W«T»J£
xa,} o ulos 6109. Nyssen. t. i. p. 915. vid.
Petav. de Deo i. 9. §. 13. Should it be
asked, " What is the Father if not God ?"
it is enough to answer, " the Father."
Men differ from each other as being in-
dividuals, but the characteristic differ-
ence between Father and Son is, not
that they are individuals, but that they
are Father and Son. In these extreme
statements it must be ever borne in mind
that we are contemplating divine things
according to our notions, not in fact :
i.e. speaking of the Almighty Father,
as such ; there being no real separation
between His Person and His Substance.
It may be added, that, though theo-
logians differ in their decisions, it
would appear that our Lord is not the
Image of the Father's person, but of
the Father's substance ; in other words,
not of the Father considered as Father,
but considered as God. That is, God
the Son is like and equal to God the
Father, because they are both the same
God ; vid. p. 149, note x. also next note.
2
212 Because the Father the only Father and the Son the only Son.
Disc, the Godhead ; for not as man is God ; for the Father is not
i from father; therefore doth He not beget one who shall
1 *«of- beget ; nor is the Son from effluence ' of the Father, nor is
He begotten from a father that was begotten ; therefore neither
is He begotten so as to beget. Thus it belongs to the God-
head alone, that the Father is properly g father, and the Son
properly son, and in Them, and Them only, does it hold that
§. 22. the Father is ever Father and the Son ever Son. Therefore
he who asks why the Son has not a son, must inquire why
the Father had not a father. But both suppositions are
indecent and irreligious exceedingly. For as the Father
is ever Father and never could be Son, so the Son is ever Son
and never could be Father. For in this rather is He shewn
to be the Father's Expression and Image, remaining what
He is and not changing, but thus receiving from the Father
to be one and the same. If then the Father change, let the Image
u change ; for so is the Image and Radiance in its relation
towards Him who begat It. But if the Father is unalterable,
and what He is that He continues, necessarily does the
Image also continue what He is, and will not alter. Now
He is Son from the Father; therefore He will not become
other than is proper to the Father's substance. Idly then
have the foolish ones devised this objection also, wishing to
separate the Image from the Father, that they might level
the Son with things generated.
vid. p. 18, note o. Else- is he called father of another ; so that in
where Athan.says, " The Father being the case of men the names father and
one and only is Father of a Son one and son do not properly, xvg'iug, hold." ad
only; and in the instance of Godhead Serap. i. 16. also ibid. iv. 4 fin. and 6.
only have the names Father and Son vid. also xv^tugj Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. 5.
stay, and are ever; for of men if any a,\*6us , Orat. 25, 16. «W«f, Basil. contr.
one be called father, yet he has been son Eunom. i. 5. p. 215.
of another j and if he be called son, yet
CHAP. VII.
OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING PROOF.
Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was already, or
One that was not.
1. RANKING Him among these, according to the teaching of CHAP.
Eusebius, and accounting Him such as the things which come —
into being through Him, the Arians revolted from the truth,
and used, when they commenced this heresy, to go about with
dishonest phrases which they had got together1 ; nay, up to this ' P- 193,
time some of them a, when they fall in with boys in the market-
place, question them, not out of divine Scripture, but thus, as
if bursting with the abundance of their heart; — "He who is, Mat. 12,
did He make him who was not, from Him who is, or him
who was? therefore did He make the Son, whereas He was, or
a This miserable procedure, of making
sacred and mysterious subjects a matter
of popular talk and debate, which is a
sure mark of heresy, had received a
great stimulus about this time by the
rise of the Anomceans. Eusebius's tes-
timony to the profaneness which
attended Arianism upon its rise, has
been given above, p. 75, note h. The
Thalia is another instance of it. S.
Alexander speaks of the interference,
even judicial, in its behalf against him-
self, of disobedient women, J/ lvrv£iets
ytnaixetgiav uriixruv a, ^*a-rjjo*av, and of
the busy and indecent gadding about of
the younger, \x <rov <rt(>tri>o%(i$>in vrciffai
ayvia.v ei.fftp.vus- ap. Theod. Hist. i. 3.
p. 730. also p. 747. also of the men's buf-
foon conversation, p. 731. Socrates says
that " in the Imperial Court, the officers
of the bedchamber held disputes with
the women, and in the city in every
house there was a war of dialectics."
Hist. ii. 2. This mania raged espe-
cially in Constantinople, and S. Gre-
gory Naz. speaks of " Jezebels in as
thick a crop as hemlock in a field."
Orat. 35. 3. vid. supr. p. 91, note q. He
speaks of the heretics as " aiming at
one thing only, how to make good or
refute points of argument," making
11 every market-place resound with their
words, and spoiling every entertainment
with their trifling and offensive talk."
Orat. 27. 2. The most remarkable
testimony of the kind though not con-
cerning Constantinople, is given by S.
Gregory Nyssen, and often quoted,
" Men of yesterday and the day before,
mere mechanics, off-hand dogmatists
in theology, servants too and slaves
that have been flogged, runaways from
servile work, are solemn with us and
philosophical about things incompre-
hensible "With such the whole city
is full ; its smaller gates, forums,
squares, thoroughfares ; the clothes-ven-^
ders, the money-lenders, the victuallers.
Ask about pence, and he will discuss
the Generate and Ingenerate ; inquire
the price of bread, he answers, Greater
is the Father, and the Son is subject ;
say that a bath would suit you, and he
defines that the Son is out of nothing.'*
t. 2. p. 898.
214 As God exists without place, and creates without materials,
Disc, whereas He was notb?" And again, " Is the Ingenerate one
T> or two ?" and " Has He free will, and yet does not alter at
His own choice, as being of an alterable nature ? for He is
not as a stone to remain by Himself uiimoveable." Next
they turn to women, and address them in turn in this
womanish language ; " Hadst thou a son before bearing ?
now, as thou hadst not, so neither was the Son of God
before His generation." In such language do the disgraceful
men sport and revel, and liken God to men, pretending to
Rom. i,be Christians, but changing God's glory into an image made
oo ,
t ' j^ like to corruptible man .
ref. 3. 2. Words so senseless and dull deserve no answer at all ;
*' however, lest their heresy appear to have any foundation, it may
be right, though we go out of the way for it, to refute them even
here, especially on account of the women who are so readily
deceived by them. When they thus speak, they should
inquire of an architect, whether he can build without
materials; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God
3supr. could not make the universe without materials2. Or they
notofo. should ask every man, whether he can be without place; and
3 de if he cannot, whether it follows that God is in place3; that so
§. TL they may be brought to shame even by their audience. Or why
p. 17,18. is it that, on hearing that God has a Son, they deny Him by
the parallel of themselves; whereas, if they hear that He
creates and makes, no longer do they object their human
ideas ? they ought in creation also to entertain the same, and
to supply God with materials, and so deny Him to be Creator,
till they end in herding with Manichees. But if the bare idea
of God transcends such thoughts, and, on very first hearing,
a man believes and knows that He is in being, not as we are,
and yet in being as God, and creates not as man creates, but
yet creates as God, it is plain that He begets also not as men
beget, but begets as God. For God does not make man His
b This objection is ^found In Alex, but this, that the very fact of His
~* ~fyck 2' « «v 0ies rov (w oWa Ix. being begotten or a Son, implies a
•Tov ft* ovrof. Again, ovroc. yiyswnxs * beginning, that is, a time when He
OVK ovra,. Greg. Orat. 29. 9. who answers was not ; it being by the very force
it. Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eunom. iv. p. of the words absurd to say that " God
281. 2. Basil calls the question xoXv- begat Him that was" or to deny that
i(6M»m, contr. Eunom. ii. 14. It " God begat Him that was not." For
will be seen to be but the Arian the symbol, ol* %* v*h ym*t*t rid.
tormula of "He was not before His note at the end of this Discourse',
generation," in another shape ; being
so He begets without time. 215
pattern; but rather we men, for that God is properly, and CHAP.
alone truly !, Father of His Son, are also called fathers of ourt VIL_
own children ; for of Him is every fatherhood in heaven awe? note k.'
earth named. And their positions, while unscrutinized, £j)h' 3>
have a shew of sense ; but if any one scrutinize them by
reason, they will but bring on them derision and mockery.
3. For first of all, as to their first question, which is such as §• 24.
this, how dull and vague it is ! they do not explain who it is
they ask about, so as to allow of an answer, but they say ab-
stractedly, " He who is," " him who is not." Who then " is,"
and what " are not," O Arians ? or who " is," and who
" is not ?" what are said " to be," what " not to be ?" for He
that is, can make things which are not, and which are, and
which were before. For instance, carpenter, and goldsmith,
and potter, each, according to his own art, works upon
materials previously existing, making what vessels he pleases;
and the God of all Himself, having taken the dust of the
earth existing and already brought to be, fashions man;
that very earth, however, whereas it was not once, He has at
one time made by His own Word. If then this is the meaning
of their question, the creature on the one hand plainly was not
before its generation, and men, on the other, work the existing
material ; and thus their reasoning is inconsequent, since both
" what is" becomes, and " what is not" becomes, as these
instances shew. But if they speak concerning God and His
Word, let them complete their question and then ask, Was the
God " who is" ever without rational Word 2 ? and, whereas He 2 &*••?<*
is Light, was He ray -less ? or was He always Father of the note b.'
Word ? Or again in this manner, Has the Father " who is"
made the Word " who is not," or has He ever with Him His
Word, as the proper offspring of His substance? This will
shew them that they do but presume aud venture on
sophisms about God and Him who is from Him. Who
indeed can bear to hear them say that God was ever without
rational Word ? this is what they fall into a second time,
though endeavouring in vain to escape it and to hide it
with their sophisms. Nay, one would fain not hear them
disputing at all, that God was not always Father, but
became so afterwards, (which is necessary for their fantasy,
that His Word once was not,) considering the number of the
216 If the Son not eternal, neither is the Father.
Disc, proofs already adduced against them; while John besides
L says, The Word was, and Paul again writes, Who being
John i, ^ irighiness of His glory, and Who is over all, God blessed
Heb. i , j?or eveTm Amen .
Kom. 9, 4. They had best have been silent; but since it is otherwise,
^' 9_ it remains to meet their shameless question with a bold
1 via. 'retort1. Perhaps on seeing the counter absurdities which
Basil. ]jeset themselves, they may cease to fight against the truth.
Eunom. After many prayers c then that God would be gracious to us,
"' l7' thus we might ask them in turn; God who is, has He so
2 yiynn become 2, whereas He was not? or is He also before His gene-
3 yi»nT«i ration 3 ? whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of
nothing, and being nothing before, did He suddenly appear
Himself? Indecent is such an inquiry, yea, indecent and
very blasphemous, yet parallel with theirs ; for the answer
they make, abounds in irreligion. But if it be blasphemous
and utterly irreligious thus to inquire about God, it will be
blasphemous too to make the like inquiries about His Word.
5- However, by way of exposing a question so senseless
and so dull, it is necessary to answer thus : — whereas God
is, He was eternally; since then the Father is ever. His
Radiance ever is, which is His Word. And again, God who
is, hath from Himself His Word who also is; and neither hath
4 'wyi- the Word been added *, whereas He was not before, nor was
the Father once without a Word. For this assault upon the
Son makes the blasphemy recoil upon the Father; as if He
devised for Himself a Wisdom, and Word, and Son from
P. 43, without 5 ; for whichever of these titles you use, you denote
the offspring from the Father, as has been said. So that
this their objection does not hold; and naturally; for denying
the Word they in consequence ask questions which are ir-
P. 2, rational6. As then if a person saw the sun, and then inquired
concerning its radiance, and said, " Did that which is make
c This cautious and reverent way Prgef.adMonach. "Theunweariedhabit
of speaking is a characteristic of S. of the religious man is to worship the All
Athanasius. " I had come to the re- (TO sr*»)in silence, and to hymn God his
solution to be silent at this time, but Benefactor with thankful cries, ---- but
on the exhortation of your holiness, &c. since," &c. contr. Apoll. i. init. " I
I have in few words written this Epistle, must ask another question, bolder, yet
and even this hardly, of which do you with a religious intention; be propitious,
supply the defects," &c. ad Serap. i. 1. O Lord, &c." Orat. iii. 63. vid. p. 20,
vid.ii.init. adEpict. 13 fin. ad Max. init. ref. 1. p. 25, note c. p. 153, note d,
5
6
Did the Father needan instrument to create, He not perfect. 217
that which was, or that which was not," he would be held not CHAP.
to reason sensibly, but to be utterly mazed, because he fancied
what is from the Light to be external to it, and was raising
questions, when and where and whether it were made ; in like
manner, thus to speculate concerning the Son and the Father
and thus to inquire, is far greater madness, for it is to conceive
of the Word of the Father as external to Him, and to image
the natural offspring as a work, with the avowal, " He was
not before His generation."
6. Nay, let them over and above take this answer to their
question ; — The Father who was, made the Son who was, for
the Word was made flesh ; and, whereas He was Son of John i,
God, He made Him in consummation of the ages also Son of
Man, unless forsooth, after Samosatene, they affirm that He
did not even exist at all, till He became man.
7. This is sufficient from us in answer to their first ques- §• 26.
tion ; and now on your part, O Arians, remembering your own
words, tell us whether He who was needed Him who was
not for the framing of the universe, or Him who was? Ye
said that He made for Himself His Son out of nothing, as an
instrument whereby to make the universe. Which then is
superior, that which needs or that which supplies the need ?
or does not each supply the deficiency of the other ? \ e
rather prove the weakness of the Maker, if He had not power
of Himself to make the universe, but provided for Himself an
instrument from without*1, as carpenter might do or shipwright,
unable to work any thing, without axe and saw ? Can any
thing be more irreligious ! yet why should one dwell on its
heinousness, when enough has gone before to shew that
their doctrine is a mere fantasy ?
d fy>yuttv, vid. p. 12, note g. p. 118, Eccles. Theol. i. 8. supr. p. 62, note f.
note n. p. 62, note f. This was alleged and by the Anomceans, supr. p. 12,
by Arius, Socr. i. 6. and by Eusebius, note x.
CHAP. VIII.
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.
Whether we may decide the question by the parallel of human sons, which are
born later than their parents. No, for the force of the analogy lies in the
idea of connaturality. Time is not involved in the idea of Son, but is
adventitious to it, and does not attach to God, because He is without
parts and passions. The titles Word and Wisdom guard our thoughts of
Him and His Son from this misconception. God not a Father, as a Creator,
in posse from eternity, because creation does not relate to the substance
of God, as generation does.
DISC< 1. NOR is answer needful to their other very simple and
*• foolish inquiry, which they put to women ; or none besides
that which has been already given, namely, that it is not
suitable to measure divine generation by the nature of men.
However, that as before they may pass judgment on them-
selves, it is well to meet them on the same ground, thus : —
Plainly, if they inquire of parents concerning their son, let
them consider whence is the child which is begotten. For,
granting the parent had not a son before his begetting, still,
after having him, he had him, not as external or as foreign,
but as from himself, and proper to his substance and his
unvarying image, so that the former is beheld in the latter,
and the latter is contemplated in the former. If then they
assume from human examples that generation implies time,
why not from the same infer that it implies the Natural and
the Proper % instead of extracting serpent-like from the earth
only what turns to poison ? Those who ask of parents, and
a supr. p. 13, note u. The question other hand, said that to suppose a true
was, What was that sense of Son which Son, was to think of God irreverently,
would apply to the Divine Nature ? The as implying division, change, &c. The
Catholics said that its essential mean- Catholics replied that the notion of
ing could apply, viz. consubstantiality, materiality was quite as foreign from
whereas the point of posteriority to the the Divine Essence as time, and as the
.bather depended on a condition, time, Divine Sonship was eternal, so was it
which could not exist in the instance of also clear both of imperfection or ex-
God, p. 16, note k. The Arians on the tension.
God's Son like man>s9in connaturality^not in point of time. 219
say, " Hadst thou a Son before thou didst beget him ?" CHAP.
should add, " And if thou hadst a son, didst thou purchase -ZHL_
him from without as a house or any other possession * ?" And * p- 21.
then thou wouldest be answered, " He is not from without, but
from myself." For things which are from without are possessions,
and pass from one to another ; but my son is from me, proper
and similar to my substance 2, not become mine from another, 2 p. 210
but begotten of me ; wherefore I too am wholly in him, while note e*
I remain myself what I amb." For so it is; though the parent
be distinct in time, as being man, who himself has come to
be in time, yet he too would have had his child ever co-
existent with him, but that his nature was a restraint and
made it impossible. For Levi too was already in the loins of
his great-grandfather, before his own generation, and his
grandfather begot him. When then the man comes to that age
at which nature supplies the power, immediately, with nature
unrestrained, he becomes father of the son from himself. There- §. 27.
fore, if on asking parents about children, they get for answer, that
children which are by nature are not from without, but from
their parents, let them confess in like manner concerning the
Word of God, that He is simply from the Father. And if
they make a question of the time, let them say what is to
restrain God (for it is necessary to prove their irreligion
h It is from expressions such as this Emperor's countenance and form are in
that the Greek Fathers have been ac- His Image, and the countenance of
cused of tri theism. The truth is, every His Image is in the Emperor. For
illustration, as being incomplete on one the Emperor's likeness in His Image is
or other side of it, taken by itself, tends an unvarying likeness, asr«g«AXaxT*f , so
to heresy. The title Son byitself suggests that he who looks upon the Image, in
a second God, as the title "Word a mere it sees the Emperor, and again he who
attribute, and the title Instrument a sees the Emperor, recognises that He
creature. All heresies are partial is in the Image. The Image then might
views of the truth, and are wrong, not say, ' I and the Emperor are one.' "
so much in what they say, as in what Orat. iii. §. 5. And thus the Auctor
they deny. The truth, on the other de Trin. refers to " Peter, Paul, and
hand, is a positive and comprehensive Timothy having three subsistencies and
doctrine, and in consequence necessarily one humanity." i. p. 918. S. Cyril even
mysterious and open to misconception, seems to deny that each individual man
vid. p. 43, note d. p. 140, note n. may be considered a separate substance
When Athan. implies that the Eternal except as the Three Persons are such.
Father is in the Son, though remaining Dial. i. p. 409. and S. Gregory Nyssen
what He is, as a man in his child, he is led to say that, strictly speaking, the
is intent only upon the point of the abstract man, which is predicated of
Son's connaturality and equality, which separate individuals, is still one, and
the Arians denied. In like manner he this with a view of illustrating the
says in a later Discourse, " In the Son Divine Unity, ad Ablab. t. 2. p. 449.
the Father's godhead is teheld. The \id. Petav. de Trin. iv. 9.
220 As Son images connaturality, so Radiance co-existence,
Disc, on the very ground on which their scoff is made), let them
__ L tell us, what is there to hinder God from being always
Father of the Son ; for that what is begotten must be from its
father is undeniable.
2. Moreover, they will pass judgment on themselves as to all
such speculations concerning God, if, as they questioned women
on the subject of time, so they inquire of the sun concerning its
!p. 20. radiance, and of the fountain concerning its issue1. They
will find that these, though an offspring, always exist with
those things from which they arec. And if parents, such as
these, have in common with their children nature and
duration, why, if they suppose God inferior to things that
come to be d, do they not openly say out then* own irreligion ?
But if they do not dare to say this openly, and the Son is con-
fessed to be, not from without, but a natural offspring from
the Father, and that there is nothing which is a hindrance to
God, (for not as man is He, but more than the sun, or rather
the God of the sun,) it follows that the Word co-exists with
the Father both as from Him and as ever, through whom the
Father caused that all things which were not should be. That
then the Son comes not of nothing but is eternal and from
the Father, is certain even from the nature of the case ; and
the question of the heretics to parents exposes their per-
verseness ; for they confess the point of nature, and now have
been put to shame on the point of time.
§. 28. 3. As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine
generation must not be compared to the nature of men, nor
the Son considered to be part of God, nor generation to
imply any passion whatever; God is not as man; for
men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which
waits for periods by reason of its weakness. But with
God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts,
but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and
c The question is not, whether in d S. Athanasius's doctrine is, that,
matterof fact, in the particular case, the GodcontaininginHimself all perfection,
rays would issue after, and not with the whatever is excellent in one created
first existence of the luminous body; for thing above another, is found in its
the illustration is not used to shew how perfection in Him. If then such gene-
such a thing may be, or to give an ration as radiance from light is more
instanced it, but to convey to the mind perfect than that of children from
a correct idea of what it is proposed to parents, that belongs, and transcend-
teach in the Catholic doctrine. ently, to the* All-perfect God.
and " Word" immateriality.
indivisibly Father of the Son1. This again is strongly CHAP.
evidenced and proved by divine Scripture. For the Word t -
of God is His Son, and the Son is the Father's Word and
Wisdom ; and Word and Wisdom is neither creature nor
part of Him whose Word He is, nor an offspring passibly
begotten. Uniting then the two titles2, Scripture speaks of2?. 140,
" Son," in order to herald the offspring of His substance nc
natural and true; and, on the other hand, that none may
think of the Offspring humanly, while signifying His sub-
stance, it also calls Him Word, Wisdom, and Radiance ; to
teach us that the generation was impassible, and eternal, and
worthy of Gode. What affection then, or what part of the
Father is the Word and the Wisdom and the Radiance?
So much may be impressed even on these men of folly ; for
as they asked women concerning God's Son, so3 let them3Orat.
inquire of men concerning the Word, and they will find that U1* 67'
the Word which they put forth is neither an affection of
them nor a part of their mind. But if such be the word of
men, who are passible and partitive, why speculate they
about passions and parts in the instance of the immaterial
and indivisible God, that under pretence of reverence f they
may deny the true and natural generation of the Son ?
e This is a view familiar to the Christum per naturalia mulieris-1 de-
Fathers, viz. that in this consists our scendisse confitear ; ipse enim testimo-
Lord's Sonship, that He is the "Word niumdat,quiadesinibusPatrisdescendit.
or as S. Augustine says, Christum ideo Archel. Disp. p. 185. " We, as saying
Filium quia Verbum. Aug. Ep. 102. 11. that the Word of God is incapable of
" If God is the Father of a Word, why is defilement, even by the assumption of
not He which is begotten a Son?" de mortal and vulnerable flesh, fear not to
Deer. §. 17-supr. p. 27. " If I speak of believe that He is born of a Virgin ; ye"
Wisdom, I speak of His offspring." Manichees, "because with impious per-
Theoph. ad Autolyc. i. 3. " The Word, verseness ye believe the Son of God to
the genuine Son of Mind." Clem. Pro- be capable of it, dread to commie him to
trept.p.58. Petavius discusses this sub- the flesh." August, contr. Secund. 9.
ject accurately with reference to the dis- Faustus "is neither willing to receive
tinction between Divine generation and Jesus of the seed of David, nor made of
Divine Procession, de Trin. vii. 14. a woman nor the death of Christ
f Heretics have frequently assigned itself, and burial, and resurrection, &c."
reverence as the cause of their oppo- August, contr. Faust, xi. 3. As the
sition to the Church ; and if, even Manichees denied our Lord a body, so
Arius affected it, the plea may be ex- the Apollinarians denied Him a rational
pected in any other. " O stultos et soul, still under pretence of reverence,
impios metus," says S. Hilary, " et because, as they said, the soul was neces-
irreligionem de Deo sollicitudinem."de sarily sinful. Leontius makes this their
Trin.iv. 6. It was still more commonly main argument, o veus a.^K^Tn-riKOf iffrt.
professed in regard to the Catholic doc- de Sect. iv. p. 507. vid. also Greg. Naz.
trine of the Incarnation. Thus Manes, Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p. 89. Athan. in
Absit ut Dominum nostrum Jesum Apoll. i. 2. 14. Epiph. Ancor. 79. 80.
222 The Eternal Son is not of will, but of nature.
Disc. 4. Enough was said above to shew that the offspring from
__L God is not an affection ; and now it has been shewn in par-
ticular that the Word is not begotten according to affection.
The same may be said of Wisdom ; God is not as man ; nor
must they here think humanly of Him. For, whereas men
are capable of wisdom, God partakes in nothing, but is
Himself the Father of His own Wisdom, of which whoso par-
takes is given the name of wise. And this Wisdom is not a
passion, nor a part, but an Offspring proper to the Father.
Wherefore He is ever Father, nor is the character of Father
1 l«r/yi- adventitious1 to God, lest He seem alterable ; for if it is good
ym that He be Father, yet He has not ever been Father, then
good has not ever been in Him.
§. 29. 5. But, observe, say they, God was always a Maker, nor is the
power of framing adventitious to Him ; does it follow then,
that, because He is the Framer of all, therefore His works
also are eternal, and is it wicked to say of them too, that
they were not before generation ? Senseless are these Arians ;
for what likeness is there between Son and Work, that they
should parallel a father's with a maker's function ? How is it
that, with that difference between offspring and work, which has
been shewn, they remain so ill-instructed? Let it be repeated
then, that a work is external to the nature, but a Son is the
proper offspring of the substance; it follows that a work need
not have been always, for the workman frames it when He
will; but an offspring is not subject to will, but is pro-
avid. per to the substance2. And a man may be and may be
Orat.iii. J J
§.59,
&c.
Athan. &c. call the Apollinarian doc- tus," &c. Leon. Ep. 21. 1 fin. " For-
trine Manichean in consequence, vid. in bid it," he says at Constantinople,
Apoll. ii. 8. 9. &c. Again, the Eranistes " that I should say that the Christ was
in Theodoret, who advocates a similar of two natures, or should discuss the
doctrine, will not call our Lord man. nature, QvfftoXo'ytTv, of my God." Concil.
" I consider it important to acknow- t. 2. p. 157. And so in this day popular
ledge an assumed nature, but to call Tracts have been published, ridiculing
the Saviour of the world man is to St. Luke's account of our Lord's nativity
impair our Lord's glory." Eranist. ii. under pretence of reverence towards the
p. 83. Eutyches, on the other hand, God of all, and interpreting Scripture
would call our Lord man, but refused to allegorically on Pantheistic principles,
admit His human nature, and still with A modern argument for Universal Re-
the same profession. " Ego," he says, stitution takes the same form ; " Do not
" sciens sanctos et beatos patres nostros we shrink from the notion of another's
refutantes duarum naturarum vocabu- being sentenced to eternal punishment ;
lum, et non audens de natura tractare and are we more merciful than God?"
Dei Verbi, qui in carnem venit, in vid. Matt. xvi. 22, 23.
veritate non in phantasmate homo fac-
NotGodcannotmakejbutcreatur€scarmotlemadey€iernaUySi^
called Maker, though the works are not as yet ; but father CHAP.
he cannot be called, nor can he be, unless a son exist. And —
if they curiously inquire why God, though always with the
power to make, does not always make, (though this also be
the presumption of madmen, for who hath known the mind Rom.
of the Lord, or who hath been His Counsellor? or how shall ^^^
the thing formed say to the potter, why hast thou made me 20.
thus? however, not to leave even a weak argument un-
noticed,) they must be told, that although God always had the
power to execute, yet the things generated had not the power
of being eternal g. For they are out of nothing, and therefore
were not before their generation ; but things which were not
before their generation, how could these co-exist with the
ever-existing God? Wherefore God, looking to what was good
for them, then made them all when He saw that, when pro-
duced, they were able to abide. And as, though He was
able, even from the beginning in the time of Adam, or Noe,
or Moses, to send His own Word, yet He sent Him not until
the consummation of the ages ; for this He saw to be good for the
whole creation, so also things generated did He make when
He would, and as was good for them. But the Son, not being
a work, but proper to the Father's offspring, always is ; for,
whereas the Father always is, so what is proper to His sub-
stance must always be ; and this is His Word and His
Wisdom. And that creatures should not be in existence,
does not disparage the Maker; for He hath the power of
framing them, when He wills ; but for the offspring not to be
ever with the Father, is a disparagement of the perfection of
His substance. Wherefore His works were framed, when
He would, through His Word; but the Son is ever the proper
offspring of the Father's substance.
8 Athan.'s argument is as follows : shall perish," in the Psalm, not as a
that, as it is of the essence of a son to fact but as the definition of the nature
he connatural w ith the father, so is it of of a creature. Also ii. §. 1 . where he says,
theessewceofacreaturetobeofmrfAm^, "It is proper to creatures and works
t£ «v* ovruv ; therefore, while it was not to have said of jthem, \l eux otrat and tvx
impossible from the nature of the case, jv v$i ytvvnfa," vid. Cyril. Thesaur.
for Almighty God is to be always Father, 9. p. 67. Dial. ii. p. 460. on the question
it was impossible for the same reason of being a Creator in posse, vid. supra,
that He should be always a Creator, p. 65, note m.
vid. infr. §. 58. where he takes, " They
CHAP. IX.
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.
Whether is the Ingenerate one or two ? Inconsistent in Arians to use an
unseriptural word; necessary to define its meaning. Different senses of
the word. If it means " without Father," there is but One Ingenerate ;
if "without beginning or creation," there are two. Inconsistency of
Asterius. " Ingenerate " a title of God, not in contrast with the Son, but
with creatures, as is " Almighty," or " Lord of powers." " Father " is
the truer title, as not only Scriptural, but implying a Son, and our adop-
tion as sons.
Disc. 1. THESE considerations encourage the faithful, and distress
__L__the heretical, perceiving, as they do, their heresy overthrown
§. 30. thereby. Moreover, their further question " whether the Inge-
nerate be one or two3," shews how false are their views, how
treacherous and full of guile. Not for the Father's honour
ask they this, but for the dishonour of the Word. Accord-
ingly, should any one, not aware of their craft, answer,
" the Ingenerate is one," forthwith they spirt out their own
venom, saying, " Therefore the Son is among things generate,
and well have we said, He was not before His generation."
Thus they make any kind of disturbance and confusion, pro-
a The word ayiwnrov was in the phi- Their view is drawn out at length in
losophical schools synonymous with Epiph. Hser. 76. S. Athanasius does not
"God;" hence by asking whether go into this question, but rather confines
there were two Ingenerates, the Ano- himself to the more popular form of it,
mceans implied that there were two viz. the Son is by His very name not
Gods, if Christ was God in the sense Ayivvuryf, but yttvtjrof, but all yivvjjra
in which the Father was. Hence are creatures ; which he answers, as
Athan. retorts, <PK*XHTIS, ol Myoptv $uo de Deer. §. 28. supr. p. 53. by saying
ayt'wjra, Xtyeoiri ^v» hovs- Orat. iii. 16. that Christianity had brought in a new
also ii. 38. Plato used a-yiwnrov of the idea into theology, viz. the sacred doc-
Supreme God, (supr. p. 51, note b.) the trineof a true Son,!* T'VK olffia.s- Thiswas
Valentinians, Tertull. contr. Val. 7. what the Arians had originally denied,
and Basilides, Epiph. Hser. 31. 10. Sv ™ <£yimjT«v, tv ft TO &v* aiirov favtSg,
S. Clement uses it, supr. p. 147, note t. *«/ olx I* <r*s oltritts etv-rou. Euseb. Nic.
and S. Ignatius applies it to tbe Son, ap. Theod. Hist. i. 5. When they were
p. 147. S. Dionysius Alex, puts as an urged what according to them was the
hypothesis in controversy the very posi- middle idea to which the Son answered,
tion of the Anomceans, on which their if they would not accept the Catholic,
whole argument turned, ap. Euseb. they would not define but merely said,
PraRp. VIK 19. viz. that f> ayivvwa is yi»yqu«, £xx' evx, ut »» v
the very ovna, of God, not an attribute, vid. p. 10, note u.
Different senses of the word " Ingenerate.'" '2-25
vided they can but separate the Son from the Father, and CHAP.
reckon the Framer of all among His works. Now first they IX' -
may be convicted on this score, that, while blaming the
Nicene Bishops for their use of phrases not in Scripture,
though these not injurious, but subversive of their irreligion,
they themselves went off upon the same fault, that is,
using words not in Scripture *, and those in contumely of the l p. 31,
Lord, knowing neither what they say nor whereof they™^-^
affirm. For instance, let them ask the Greeks, who have *> 7.
been their instructors, (for it is a word of their invention,
not Scripture,) and when they have been instructed in its
various significations, then they will discover that they
cannot even question properly, on the subject which they
have undertaken. For they have led me to ascertain2 that2P-52>
by " ingenerate" is meant what has not yet come to be, but is
possible to be, as wood which is not yet become, but is
capable of becoming, a vessel ; and again what neither has
nor ever can come to be, as a triangle quadrangular, and an
even number odd. For neither has nor ever can a triangle
become quadrangular ; nor has ever, nor can ever, even be-
come odd. Moreover, by " ingenerate" is meant, what ex-
ists, but not generated from any, nor having a father at all.
Further, Asterius, that unprincipled sophist, the patron too of
this heresy, has added in his own treatise, that what is not
made, but is ever, is " ingenerate V They ought then, when
they ask the question, to add in what sense they take the
word " ingenerate," and then the parties questioned would be
able to answer to the point.
2. But if they still are satisfied with merely asking, " Is §• 31.
the Ingenerate one or two ?" they must be told first of all, as
ill-educated men, that many are such and nothing is such,
many which are capable of generation, and nothing is not
b The two first senses here given Athan. used his former writings and
answer to the two first mentioned, de worked over again his former ground,
Deer. §. 28. and, as he there says, are and simplified or cleared what he had
plainly irrelevant. The third in the de said. In the de Deer. A.D. 350, we have
Deer, which, as he there observes, is am- three senses of ayinuro*, two irrelevant
biguous and used for a sophistical pur- and the third ambiguous; here in Orat.
pose, is here divided into third andfourth, 1. (358,) he divides the third into two;
answering to the two senses which alone in the de Syn. (359,) he rejects and
are assigned in the de Syn. §. 46. and omits the two first, leaving the two
on them the question turns. This is an last, which are the critical senses,
instance, of which many occur, how
2-20 Its different senses distinguished.
Disc, capable, as has been said. But if they ask according as
L Asterius ruled it, as if" what is not a work but was always" were
ingenerate, then they must constantly be told that the Son as
well as the Father must in this sense be called ingenerate.
For He is neither in the number of things generated, nor a
work, but has ever been with the Father, as has already been
shewn, in spite of their many variations for the sole sake of
testifying against the Lord, " He is of nothing" and " He
was not before His generation." When then, after failing at
every turn, they betake themselves to the other sense of the
question, " existing but not generated of any nor having a
father," we shall tell them that the Ingenerate in this sense is
only one, namely the Father ; and they will take nothing by
their question c. For to say that God is in this sense In-
generate, does not shew that the Son is a thing generate, it
being evident from the above proofs that the Word is such as
He is who begat Him. Therefore if God be ingenerate, His
1 p. 209, Image is not generate, but an Offspring l, which is His Word
and His Wisdom. For what likeness has the generate to the
Ingenerate ? (one must not weary to use repetition ;) for if
they will have it that the one is like the other, so that he
who sees the one beholds the other, they are like to say
that the Ingenerate is the image of creatures ; the end of which
is a confusion of the whole subject, an equalling of things gene-
rated with the Ingenerate, and a denial of the Ingenerate by
measuring Him with the works : and all to reduce the Son into
their number.
§. 32. 3. However, I suppose even they will be unwilling to pro-
ceed to such lengths, if they follow Asterius the sophist. For
he, earnest as he is in his advocacy of the Arian heresy, and
maintaining that the Ingenerate is one, runs counter to them
in saying, that the Wisdom of God is ingenerate and un-
2 deSyn. originate also; the following is a passage out of his work4:
ibi.infr."The Blessed Paul said not that he preached Christ the
ii. 37. power of God or the wisdom of God, but, without the article,
iCor.i, God's power and God's wisdom; thus preaching that the
proper power of God Himself, which is natural to Him and
f» A °f &*intir» un- &Y»'»™ and tynwn. vid. Damasc.
SI JS ,?"!?• We-re afterwards F- O. i. 8. p. 136. and Le Quien'e
expressed by the distinction of w and v, not
Admission of Aster ins unfavourable to the Arians. 2*27
co-existent with Him ingenerately, is something besides." CHAP.
And again, soon after : " However, His eternal power and
wisdom, which truth argues to be imoriginate and ingenerate ;
this must surely be one." For though misunderstanding the
Apostle's words, he considered that there were two wisdoms ;
yet, by speaking still of a wisdom co-existent with Him, he
declares that the Ingenerate is not simply one, but that there
is another ingenerate with Him. For what is co-existent, co-
exists not with itself, but with another. If then they agree
with Asterius, let them never ask again, " Is the Ingenerate
one or two," or they will have to contest the point with him ;
if, on the other hand, they differ even from him, let them not
take up their defence upon his treatise, lest, biting one Gal. 5,
another, they be consumed one of another.
4. So much on the point of their ignorance ; but who can
say enough on their want of principle ? who but would justly
hate them while possessed by such a madness ? for when they
were no longer allowed to say " out of nothing" and " He was
not before His generation," they hit upon this word " ingene-
rate," that, by saying among the simple that the Son was
generate, they might imply the very same phrases " out of
nothing," and " He once was not;" for in such phrases
things generate and creatures are implied. If they have §.33.
confidence in their own positions, they should stand to them,
and not change about so variously * ; but this they will not, l p- 84,
from an idea that success is easy, if they do but shelter their
heresy under colour of the word " ingenerate." Yet after all,
this term is not used in contrast with the Son, clamour as
they may, but with things generate ; and the like may be
found in the words " Almighty" and " Lord of the Powers d."
For if we say that the Father has power and mastery over all
things by the Word, and the Son rules the Father's kingdom,
and has the power of all, as His Word, and as the Image of
the Father, it is quite plain that neither here is the Son
d The passage which follows is Athan. shews us the care with which
written with his de Decr.before him. At he made his doctrinal statements, though
first he hut uses the same topics, hut they seem at first sight written off. It
presently he incorporates into this Dis- also accounts for the diffuseness and
course an actual portion of his former repetition which might be imputed to
work, with only such alterations as an his composition, what seems superfluous
author commonly makes in transcribing, being often only the insertion of an ex-
This, which is not unfrequent with tract from a former work.
Q2
•228 God In generate relatively to works, Fa ther relatively to Son .
Disc, reckoned among that all, nor is God called Almighty and
*• Lord with reference to Him, but to those things which through
the Son come to be, and over which He exercises power
and mastery through the Word. And therefore the Ingenerate
is specified not by contrast to the Son, but to the things which
through the Son come to be. And excellently : since God is
not as things generate, but is their Creator and Framer through
the Son. And as the word " Ingenerate" is specified relatively
to things generate, so the word " Father" is indicative of the
Son. And he who names God Maker and Framer and In-
generate, regards and apprehends things created and gene-
rated ; and he who calls God Father, thereby conceives and
contemplates the Son. And hence one might marvel at the
obstinacy which is added to their irreligion, that, whereas the
term " ingenerate" has the aforesaid good sense, and admits
"deSyn.of being used religiously1, they, in their own heresy, bring it
p i4~ forth for the dishonour of the Son, not having read that he
vid. who honoureth the Son honoureth the Father, and he who
John 5, dishonoureth the Son, dishonoured the Father. If they had
any concern at all6 for reverent speaking and the honour due to
the Father, it became them rather, and this were better and
higher, to acknowledge and call God Father, than to give
Him this name. For, in calling God ingenerate, they are, as
I said before, calling Him from His works, and as Maker
only and Framer, supposing that hence they may imply
that the Word is a work after their own pleasure. But
that He who calls God Father, names Him from the Son,
being well aware that if there be a Son, of necessity through
that Son all things generate were created. And they, when
they call Him Ingenerate, name Him only from His works,
and know not the Son any more than the Greeks ; but He
who calls God Father, names Him from the Word; and
knowing the Word, He acknowledges Him to be Framer of
all, and understands that through Him all things were made.
§. 34. 5. Therefore it is more pious and more accurate to denote
God from the Son and call Him Father, than to name Him
from His works only and call Him Ingenerate f. For the
e Here he begins a close transcript { The arguments against the word
of the de Deer. §. 30. supr. p. 55. the Ingenerate here brought together are
last sentence, however, of the paragraph also found in Basil, contr. Eunom. i. 5.
being an addition. p. 215. Greg. Naz. Orat. 31. 23. Epiph.
In generate not a word of Scripture. 229
latter title, as I have said, does nothing more than refer to all CHAP;
the works, individually and collectively, which have come to IX*
be at the will of God through the Word; but the title Father,
has its significance and its bearing1 only from the Son. ! «•*«««'
And, whereas the Word surpasses things generate, by so
much and more doth calling God Father surpass the calling
Him Ingenerate. For the latter is unscriptural and sus-
picious, because it has various senses ; so that, when a man
is asked concerning it, his mind is carried about to many
ideas ; but the word Father is simple and scriptural, and
more accurate, and only implies the Son. And " Ingenerate"
is a word of the Greeks, who know not the Son ; but
" Father," has been acknowledged and vouchsafed by our
Lord. For He, knowing Himself whose Son He was, said,
I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me ; and He that Johni4,
hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, and / and the Father lo', 30.
are OneK; but no where is He found to call the Father Inge-
nerate. Moreover, when He teaches us to pray, He says not,
"When ye pray, say, O God Ingenerate," but rather, WhenLukeii,
ye pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven. And it was '
His will that the Summary2 of our faith should have the same 2 p- 123,
bearing, in bidding us be baptized, not into the name ofre
Ingenerate and generate, nor into the name of Creator and
creature, but into the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
For with such an initiation we too, being of the works, are
made sons, and using the name of the Father, acknowledge
from that name the Word in the Father Himself also h. A
vain thing then is their argument about the term " Ingene-
rate," as is now proved, and nothing more than a fantasy.
Hser. 76. p. 941. Greg. Nyss. contr. 26. ad Afr. 7. 8. 9. vid. also Epiph.
Eunom. vi. p. 192. &c. Cyril. Dial. ii. Hser. 64. 9. Basil. Hexaem. ix. fin.
Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eunom. iv. p. 283. Cyr. Thes. xii. p. 111. Potam. Ep.
e These three texts are found to- ap. Dacher. t. 3. p. 299. Hil. Trin. vii.
gether frequently in Athan. parti- 41. et supr. Vid. also Animadv. in
cularly in Orat. iii. where he con- Eustath. Ep. ad Apoll. Rom. 1796.
siders the doctrines of the " Image" p. 58.
and the yrt^i^ea^fif. vid. de Deer. $. h Here ends the extract from the de
21. $. 31. de Syn. §. 45. Orat. iii. 3. 5. Decretis. The sentence following is
6. 10. 16 fin. 17. Ep. j£g. 13. Sent. D. added as a close.
CHAP. X.
OBJECTIONS CONTINUED.
How the Word has free-will, yet without being alterable. He is unalterable
because the Image of the Father, proved from texts.
Disc. 1 . As to their question whether the Word is alterable", it is
L superfluous to examine it ; it is enough simply to write down
*' 35< what they say, and so to shew its daring irreligion. How
they trifle, appears from the following questions : — " Has He
<$- free will1, or has He not? is He good from choice 2 according
t0 fl"ee Will> aild Cai1 HC5 if HC Will> altel*> k6"1^ °f ai1 altel'"
able nature ? or, as wood or stone, has He not His choice
free to be moved and incline hither and thither ?" It is but
agreeable to their heresy thus to speak and think ; for, when
once they have framed to themselves a God out of nothing
and a created Son, of course they also adopt such terms as
are suitable to a creature. However, when in their contro-
versies with Churchmen they hear from them of the real and
only Word of the Father, and yet venture thus to speak of
Him, does not their doctrine then become the most loathsome
that can be found ? Is it not enough to distract a man on
mere hearing, though unable to reply, and to make him stop
his ears, from astonishment at the novelty of what he hears them
say, which even to mention is to blaspheme ? For if the
Word be alterable and changing, where will He stay, and
what will be the end of His progress ? how shall the alter-
able possibly be like the Unalterable ? How should he who
has seen the alterable, be considered to have seen the Un-
alterable ? in which of Plis states shall we be able to behold
in Him the Father ? for it is plain that not at all times shall
, i. e. not, changeable, but of whether the Word of God is capable of
a moral nature capable of improvement, altering as the devil altered, they scru-
Arius maintained this in the strongest pled not to say, « Yea, He is capable."
terms at starting. " On being asked Alex. ap. Socr. i. 6. p. 11.
The Son unalterable, because the Father's Image. 231
we see the Father in the Son, because the Son is ever CHAP.
altering, and is of changing nature. For the Father is un-
alterable and unchangeable, and is always in the same state and
the same ; but if, as they hold, the Son is alterable, and not
always the same, but ever of a changing nature, how can such
a one be the Father's Image, not having the likeness of His
unalterableness1 ? how can He be really in the Father, if His ' supr.
moral choice is indeterminate? Nay, perhaps, as being f^2'
alterable, and advancing daily. He is not perfect yet. But p- 212.
away with such madness of the Arians, and let the truth
shine out, and shew that they are beside themselves. For
must not He be perfect who is equal to God ? and must not
He be unalterable, who is one with the Father, and His Son
proper to His substance ? and the Father's substance being
unalterable, unalterable must be also the proper Offspring
from it. And if they slanderously impute alteration to the
Word, let them learn how much their own reason is in peril2;2?. 2,
for from the fruit is the tree known. For this is why he who n°
hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father, and why the know-
ledge of the Son is knowledge of the Father.
2. Therefore the Image of the unalterable God must be§. 36.
unchangeable; for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, Heb.is,
and for ever. And David in the Psalm says of Him, T/iou9
Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth.,
and the heavens are the work of Thine hands. They s#«//Heb. i,
perish, but Ttiou remainest ; and they all shall wax old as
doth a garment. And as a vesture shalt Tlwufold them up,
and they shall be changed, but Thou art the same, and Thy
years shall not fail. And the Lord Himself says of Himself
through the Prophet, See now that I, even I am He, and /Deut.^
change not. It may be said indeed that what is here expressed Mii. V?
relates to the Father; yet it suits the Son also to speak it, spe- <*•
cially because, when made man, He manifests His own identity
and unalterableness to such as suppose that by reason of the
flesh He is changed and become other than He was. More
trustworthy are the sacred writers, or rather the Lord, than
the perversity of the irreligious. For Scripture, as in the
above-cited passage of the Psalter, signifying under the name
of heaven and earth, that the nature of all things generate
and created is alterable and changeable, yet excepting the
232 The Son unalterable because from the Father's substance.
Disc. Son from these, shews us thereby that He is in no wise a
L thing generate ; nay teaches that He changes every thing
else, and is Himself not changed, in saying, TJwu art the
same, and Thy years shall not fail. A.nd with reason ; for
1 p. 223, things generate, being from nothing1, and not being before
note g* their generation, because, in truth, they come to be after not
being, have a nature which is changeable ; but the Son, being
from the Father, and proper to His substance, is unchangeable
and unalterable as the Father Himself. For it were sin to say
that from that substance which is unalterable was begotten
an alterable word and a changeable wisdom. For how is
He longer the Word, if He be alterable? or can that be
Wisdom which is changeable ? unless perhaps, as accident in
3 P. 37, substance3, so they would have it, viz. as in any particular sub-
te y' stance, a certain grace and habit of virtue exists accidentally,
which is called Word and Son and Wisdom, and admits of
being taken from it and added to it. For they have often
expressed this sentiment, but it is not the faith of Christians ;
as not declaring that He is truly Word and Son of God, or
that the wisdom intended is the true Wisdom. For what alters
and changes, and has no stay in one and the same con-
dition, how can that be true ? whereas the Lord says, / am
John 14, the Truth. If then the Lord Himself speaks thus concerning
Himself, and declares His unalterableness, and the sacred
writers have learned and testify this, nay and our notions of
God acknowledge it as religious, whence did these men of
irreligion draw this novelty ? from their heart as from a seat
3deSyn. of corruption did they vomit it forth z.
§.16 fin.
p. 98.
CHAP. XI.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; AND FIRST, PHIL. ii. 9, 10.
Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine; e. g. Phil. ii.
9, 10. Whether the words " Wherefore God hath highly exalted" prove
moral probation and advancement. Argued against, first, from the force of
the word " Son ;" which is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Next,
the passage examined. Ecclesiastical sense of " highly exalted," and
" gave," and "wherefore;" viz. as being spoken with reference to our
Lord's manhood. Secondary sense; viz. as" implying the Word's "exalt-
ation" through the resurrection in the same sense in which Scripture
speaks of His descent in the Incarnation ; how the phrase does not
derogate from the nature of the Word.
1. BUT since they allege the divine oracles and force on CHAP.
them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense*, it XI>
becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to lay claim to §• <*7-
these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense,
and that our opponents are in error. They say then, that
the Apostle writes, Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Ph\\. 2,
Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name ; ' '
that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things
in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth;
and David, Wherefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Ps.45,9.
Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. Then they
a vid. supr. p. 78, note n. " We must their private opinion, but by the writings
not make an appeal to the Scriptures, nor and authority of the Fathers, &c." Hist.
take up a position for tbe fight, in which ii. 9. " Seeing the Canon of Scripture is
victory is not, or is doubtful, or next to perfect, &c. what need we join unto it
doubtful. For though this conflict of the authority of the Church's under-
Scripture with Scripture did not end in standing and interpretation ? because
a drawn battle, yet the true order of tbe the Scripture being of itself so deep
subject required that tbat sbould be laid and profound, all men do not understand
down first, which now becomes but a it in one and the same sense, but so
point of debate, viz. ivho have a claim many men, so many opinions almost
to the faitb itself, whose are the Scrip- may be gathered out of it ; for Nova-
tures." Tertull. de Prsescr. 19. " Ruf- tian expounds it one way, Photinus
finus says of S. Basil and S. Gregory, another, Sabellius, &c." Vincent.
"Putting asideall Greek literature, tbey Comm. 2. Hippolytus has a passage
are said to have passed thirteen years to- very mucb to the same purpose, contr.
gether in studying tbe Scriptures alone, Noet. 9 fin.
and followed out their sense not from
234 If our Lord really Son, not really " exalted" and rewarded.
Disc, urge, as something acute: " If, He was exalted and received
' grace, on a wherefore, and on a wherefore He was anointed,
He received the reward of His good choice ; but having
acted fr°m choice, He is altogether of an alterable nature."
dia, vid. This is what Eusebius ! and Arius have dared to say,
HisU.5. naJ to write ; while their partizans do not shrink from
2 p. 213, conversing about it in full market-place 2, not seeing
how mad an argument they use. For if He received
what He had as a reward of His good choice, and would
not have had it, unless He had needed it and had His
work to shew for it, then having gained it from virtue and
:j/iix«»- promotion3, with reason had He "therefore" been called Son
and God, without being very Son. For what is from another
by nature, is a real offspring, as Isaac was to Abraham, and
Joseph to Jacob and the Radiance to the Sun ; but the
so-called sons from virtue and grace, have but in place of
4 p. 237, nature a grace by acquisition, and are something else besides4
the gift itself; as the men who have received the Spirit by
Is. 1,2. participation, concerning whom Scripture saith, 1 have
begotten and exalted children, and they have rebelled against
5 vid. Me5. And of course, since they were not sons by nature,
Nic. therefore, when they altered, the Spirit was taken away
supr. ancj jjjgy were disinherited ; and again on their repent-
ance that God who thus at the beginning gave them
grace, will receive them, and give light, and call them
§. 38. sons again. But if they say this of the Saviour also,
it follows that He is neither very God nor very Son, nor
like the Father, nor in any wise has God for a Father of
His being according to substance, but of the mere grace
given to Him, and for a Creator of His being according
to substance, after the similitude of all others. And being such,
as they maintain, it will be manifest further that He had not
the name " Son" from the first, if so be it was the prize of
works done and of that very same advance which He made
when He became man, and took the form of a servant ; but
Phil. 2, then, when, after becoming obedient unto death, He was,
as the text says, highly exalted, and received that Name as
a grace, that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow.
2. What then was before this, if then He was exalted, and
then began to be worshipped, and then was called Son, when
The text brought by the Arians tells against themselves. 235
He became man ? For He seems Himself not to have CHAP.
promoted1 the flesh at all, but rather to have been Himself '
1
promoted through it, if, according to their perverseness, He *«$
was then exalted and called Son, when He became man. What
then was before this ? One must urge the question on them again,
to make it understood what their irreligious doctrine results inb.
For if the Lord be God, Son, Word, yet was not all these
before He became man, either He was something else beside
these, and afterwards became partaker of them for His virtue's
sake, as we have said ; or they must adopt the alternative,
(may it fall upon their heads !) that He was not before that
time, but is wholly man by nature, and nothing more. But
this is no sentiment of the Church, but of Samosatene and of
the present Jews. Why then, if they think as Jews, are they
not circumcised with them too, instead of pretending Christi-
anity, while they are its foes ? For if He was not, or was
indeed, but afterwards was promoted, how were all things
made by Him, or how in Him, were He not perfect, did the
Father delight2? And He, on the other hand, if now pro-2vid.
moted, how did He before rejoice in the presence of the30
Father ? And, if He received His worship after dying, how is
Abraham seen to worship Him in the tent 3, and Moses in the 3 p. 120,
bush ? and, as Daniel saw, myriads of myriads, and thousands no
of thousands were ministering unto Him ? And if, as they
say, He had His promotion now, how did the Son Himself
make mention of that His glory before and above the world,
when He said, Glorify Thou Me, O Father, with the glory J0hni7,
which I had with Ttiee before the world was. If, as they5'
say, He was then exalted, how did He before that bow theps.is,
heavens and come down ; and again, the Highest gave His
thunder ? Therefore, if, even before the world was made, the
b The Arians perhaps more than is to serve as an objection, was an objec-
other heretics were remarkable for tion also to the received doctrine of the
bringing objections against the received Arians. They considered that our Lord
view, rather than forming a consistent was above and before all creatures from
theory of their own. Indeed the very the first,andtheirCreator;how then could
vigour and success of their assault upon He be exalted above all ? They surely,
the truth lay in its being a mere assault, as much as Catholics,were obliged to ex
not a positive and substantive teaching, plain it of our Lord's manhood. They
They therefore, even more than others, could not then use it as a weapon against,
might fairly be urged on to the conse- the Church, until they took the ground
quences of their positions. Now the text of Paul of Samosata.
inrjuestion, as it must be interpreted if it
236 Our Lord not exalted, but a cause and standard for us
Disc. Son had that glory, and was Lord of glory and the Highest
: and descended from heaven, and is ever to be worshipped, ii
follows that He had no promotion from His descent, bui'
rather Himself promoted the things which needed promo-
tion ; and if He descended to effect their promotion, therefore
He did not receive in reward the name of the Son and God
but rather He Himself has made us sons of the Father, anc '
made men gods, by becoming Himself man.
§. 39. 3. Therefore He was not man, and then become God,but He
1 6to*ot- was God, and then became man, and that to make us gods1,
Since, if when He became man, only then He was called
Son and God, but before He became man, God called the
ancient people sons, and made Moses a god of Pharaoh, (and
Ps. 81, Scripture says of many, God standeth in the congregation
Sept. ' of gods,) it is plain that He is called Son and God later than
they. How then are all things through Him, and He before
Col. i, all ? or how is lie first-born of the whole creation9, if He has
2 vid. others before Him who are called sons and gods ? And how
lnfI«Ut is i* that those first partakers c do not partake of the Word r
§• «*•
This opinion is not true; it is an evasion of our present
Judaizers. For how in that case can any at all know God as
their Father ? for adoption there cannot be apart from the real
Mat.n, Son, who says, No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and
he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him. And how can there
be deifying apart from the Word and before Him ? yet, saith
Johnio, He to their brethren the Jews, If He called them gods, unto
whom the Word of God came. And if all that are called
sons and gods, whether in earth or in heaven, were adopted
and deified through the Word, and the Son Himself is the
Word, it is plain that through Him are they all, and He
3 p. 18, Himself before all, or rather He Himself only is very Son3,
3 °* and He alone is very God from the very God, not receiving
these prerogatives as a reward for His virtue, nor being
e In this passage Athan. considers doctrine very strongly in Orat. iv. §. 22.
that the participation of the Word is On the other hand, infr. 47. he says
deification, as communion with the Son expressly that Christ received the Spirit
is adoption ; also that the old Saints, in- in Baptism that He might give it to man.
asmuch^as they are called "gods" and There is no real contradiction in such
" sons," did partake of the Divine Word statements ; what was given in one way
and Son, or in other words were gifted under the Law, was given in another
with the Spirit. He asserts the same and fuller under the Gospel.
The text itself entered into. 287
something else beside1 them, but being all these by nature and CHAP.
iccording to substance. For He is Offspring of the Father's t XL
.ubstance, so that one cannot doubt that after the resemblance ref] 4. '
)f the unalterable Father, the Word also is unalterable.
4. Hitherto we have met their irrational conceits with the ^. 40.
;rue conceptions d implied in the Word " Son," as the Lord
Himself has given us. But it will be well next to expound
the divine oracles, that the unalterableness of the Son and
His unchangeable nature, which is the Father's2, as well as2yare/*i
their perverseness, may be still more fully proved. The^""
Apostle then, writing to the Philippians, says, Let ftePhil. 2,
mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who,5""11'
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be
equal with God ; but made Himself of no reputation, and
>took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made
•in the likeness of men. And, being found in fashion as
a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient to
death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also
hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is
above every name ; that at the Name of Jesus every knee
should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and
things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Can any thing be plainer and more express than this ? He
was not from a lower state promoted ; but rather, existing as
God, He took the form of a servant, and in taking it, did not
promote but humbled Himself. Where then is there here
any reward of virtue, or what advancement and promotion
in such humiliation ? For if, being God, He became man, and
descending from 011 high He is still said to be exalted, where
is He exalted, being God? this withal being plain, that,
since God is highest of all, His Word must necessarily be
highest also. Where then could He be exalted higher, who
is in the Father and like the Father in all things3 ?
5. Therefore He is beyond the need of any addition ; nor is \
such as the Arians think Him. For though the Word did
descend in order to be exalted, and so it is written, yet p. 210,
what need was there that He should humble Himself, ref- 3-
U. contr- Eunom,
voiat *vt)irn*KfAtv. cf. ««#< tvrbttet, rctf*- i. 6. init.
238 Jlie true ecclesiastical sense of the text.
Disc, as if to seek that which He had already ? And what grace
*• did He receive who is the Giver of grace l ? or how did He
note3q.' receive that Name for worship, who is always worshipped by
His Name? Nay, certainly before He became man, the
Ps.54,i. sacred writers invoke Him, Save me, O God, for Tliy Name's
Ps.20,7. sake ; and again, Some put their trust in chariots, and some
in horses, but we will remember the Name of the Lord our
God. And while He was worshipped by the Patriarchs, con-
Heb. i, cerning the Angels it is written, Let all the Angels of God
/ ^j worship Him. And if, as David says in the 71st Psalm, His
Ps. 71, Name remaineth before the sun , and before the moon from
5/2^et one generation to another, how did He receive what He had
always, even before He now received it ? or how is He exalted,
being before His exaltation, the Most High ? or how did He
receive the right of being worshipped, who before He now
received it, was ever worshipped ?
John i, 6. It is not a dark saying bat a divine mystery e. In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God ; but for our sakes afterwards the Word
was made flesh. And the term in question, highly exalted,
does not signify that the substance of the Word was exalted,
Phil. 2, for He was ever and is equal to God, but the exaltation is of
the manhood. Accordingly this is not said before the Word
became flesh ; that it might be plain that humbled and exalted
are spoken of His human nature ; for where there is humble
estate, there too maybe exaltation; and if because of His taking
flesh hum.bled is written, it is clear that highly exalted is also
2 ocivfya- saidbecause of it. For of this was man's2 nature in want, because
of the humble estate of the flesh and of death. Since then
the Word, being the Image of the Father and immortal, took
the form of a servant, and as man underwent for us death in
His flesh, that thereby He might offer Himself for us through
death to the Father; therefore also, as man, He is said because
of us and for us to be highly exalted, that as by His death
e Scripture is full of mysteries, but manner S.Ambrose says, Mare estscrip-
they are mysteries of fact, not of words, tura divina, habens in se sensus pro-
Its dark sayings or senigmata are such, fundos, et altitudinem propheticorum
because in the nature of things they cenigmatum, &c. Ep. ii. 3. What is
cannot be expressed clearly. Hence commonly called " explaining away"
contrariwise, Orat. ii. §. 77 fin. he Scripture, is this transference of the
calls Prov. 8, 22. an enigma, with an obscurity from the subject to the words
allusion to Prov. 1, 6. Sept. In like used.
He is exalted, that is, in respect of His manhood. 239
ve all died in Christ, so again in the Christ Himself we Disc,
night be highly exalted, being raised from the dead, and — - —
iscending into heaven, whither the forerunner is for us Heb. 6,
mtered, not into the figures of the true, but into heaven^! '
'tself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. But if
low for us the Christ is entered into heaven itself, though
He was even before and always Lord and Framer of the
•leavens, for us therefore is that present exaltation also written.
And as He Himself, who sanctifies all, says also that He
sanctifies Himself to the Father for our sakes, not that the
Word may become holy, but that He Himself may in Him-
self sanctify all of us, in like manner we must take the
.present phrase, He highly exalted Him, not that He Himself
should be exalted, for He is the highest, but that He may
'become righteousness for usf; and we may be exalted in
Him, and that we may enter the gates of heaven, which He
has also opened for us, the forerunners saying, Lift up your Ps.24,7.
heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and
'the King of Glory shall come in. For here also not on Him were
shut the gates, who is Lord and Maker of all, but because
of us is this too written, to whom the door of paradise was
shut. And therefore in a human relation, because of the
iflesh which He bore, it is said of Him, Lift up, O ye gates,
and shall come in, as if a man wrere entering ; but in a divine
relation on the other hand it is said of Him, since the Word
was God, that He is the Lord and the King of glory. Such
our exaltation the Spirit foreannounced in the eighty-ninth
Psalm, saying, And in Thy righteousness shall they be exalted, Ps. 88^
for Tlwu art the glory of their strength. And if the Son be fg9'^;
Righteousness, then He is not exalted as being Himself in
need, but it is we who are exalted in that Righteousness, vid.
, . , . TT lCor.1,
which is He. so.
7. And so too the words gave Him, are not written for the §. 42.
Word Himself; for even before He became man, He was
f When Scripture says that our Lord God ; it is unmeaning, and therefore is
was exalted, it means in that sense in not applied to Him in the text in ques-
which He could be exalted ; just as, in tion. Thus, e. g. S. Ambrose : " Ubi
saying that a man walks or eats, we humiliabus, ibi obediens. Ex eo enim
speak of him not as a spirit, but as in nascitur obedientia, ex quo humilitas,
that system of things to which the idea ct in eo desinit, &c." ap. Dav. alt.
of walking and eating belong. Exalta- n. 39.
tion is not a word which can belong to
240 Man's nature is exalted in the Word and worshipped.
Disc, worshipped, as we have said, by the Angels and the whole
creation in what is proper l to the Father ; but because of us
and for us this too is written of Him. For as Christ died
and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what,
as God, He ever had, that even this so high a grant of grace
might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in re-
ceiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but
2 Wi«- rather He deified2 that which He put on, nay, gave it graciously
""" to the race of man. For as He was ever worshipped as being
the Word and existing in the form of God, so being what He
ever was, though become man and called Jesus, He still has, as
before, the whole creation under foot, and bending their
knees to Him in this Name, and confessing that the Word's
becoming flesh, and undergoing death in flesh, hath not
happened against the glory of His Godhead, but to the glory
of God the Father. For it is the Father's glory that man,
made and then lost, should be found again ; and, when the
prey of death, that He should be made alive, and should
become God's temple. For whereas the powers in heaven,
both Angels and Archangels, were ever worshipping the
Lord, as they are now worshipping Him in the Name of
Jesus, this is our grace and high exaltation, that even when
He became man, the Son of God is worshipped, and the
heavenly powers are not startled at seeing all of us, who are
5infr.§. of one body with Him3, introduced into their realms. And
241. p* this had not been, unless He who existed in the form of God
had taken on Him a servant's form, and had humbled Him-
self, permitting His body to reach unto death.
§. 43. 8. Behold then what men considered the foolishness of God
because of the Cross, has become of all things most honoured.
For our resurrection is stored up in it ; and 110 longer
Israel alone, but henceforth all the nations, as the Prophet
foretold, leave their idols and acknowledge the true God, the
Father of the Christ. And the delusion of demons is come
to nought, and He only who is really God is worshipped
in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. For in that the
Lord, even when come in human body and called Jesus,
was worshipped and believed to be God's Son, and that
v&.Ynfr'. though Him the Father was known, it is plain, as has
§.4*4,47, been said, that not the Word, considered as the Word4,
43.
The Person of the WordhumUed and marts nature exalted. 241
received this so great grace, but we. For because of our CHAP.
relationship to His Body we too have become God's temple, XL
and in consequence are made God's sons, so that even in us
the Lord is now worshipped, and beholders report, as the
Apostle says, that God is in them of a truth g. As also John
saith in the Gospel, As many as received Him, to them gave John i,
He power to become children of God ; and in his Epistle he 12
writes, By this we know that He abideth in us by His* Johns,
Spirit which He hath given us. And this too is an evidence
of His goodness towards us that, while we were exalted
because that the Highest Lord is in us, and on our behalf
grace was given to Him, because that the Lord who supplies
the grace has become a man like us, He on the other hand, the
Saviour, humbled Himself in taking our body of humiliation,
and took a servant's form, putting on that flesh which was
enslaved to sinh. And He indeed gained nothing from us for
24.
8 Strat Iv vpTv o 6t»(. 1 Cor. 14, 25.
Athan. interprets «» in not among ; as
also in 1 John 3, 24. just afterwards. Vid.
i» \ftti. Gal. 1, 24. Ivr^t far,. Luke 17,
21. ifxwurtr in fifuf. John 1, 14. on which
text Hooker says, " It pleased not the
Word or Wisdom of God to take to itself
some one person among men, for then
should that one have been advanced
which was assumed and no more, but
Wisdom, to the end she might save
many, built her house of that Nature
which is common unto all ; she made
not this or that man her habitation, but
dwelt in us." Eccl. Pol. v. 52. §. 3.
S. Basil in his proof of the divinity of the
Holy Spirit has a somewhat similar pas-
sage to the text, " Man in common is
crowned with glory and honour, and gl ory
and honour and peace is reserved in the
promises for every one who doeth good.
And there is a certain glory of Israel
peculiar, and the Psalmist speaks of a
glory of his own, l Awake up my glory ;'
and there is a glory of the sun, and
according to the Apostle even a minis-
tration of condemnation with glory. So
many then being glorified, choose you
that the Spirit alone of all should be
without glory ?" de Sp. S. c. 24.
h It was usual to say against the
Apollinarians, that, unless our Lord
took on Him our nature, as it is, He
had not purified and changed it, as it
is, but another nature ; " The Lord
came not to save Adam as free from
sin, that He should become like unto
him ; but as, in the net of sin and now
fallen, that God's mercy might raise him
up with Christ." Leont.contr.Nestor.&c.
ii. p. 996. Accordingly Athan. says else-
where, " Had not sinlessness appeared in
the nature which had sinned, how was sin
condemned in the flesh ? in Apoll. ii. 6.
" It was necessary for our salvation,"
says S. Cyril, " that the Word of God
should become man, that human flesh
subject to corruption and sick with the
lust of pleasures. He might make
His own ; and, whereas He is life and
lifegiving, He might destroy the cor-
ruption, &c For by this means,
might sin in our flesh become dead."
Ep. ad Success, i. p. 138. And S. Leo,
" Non alterius naturae erat ejus caro
quam nostra, nee alio illi quam ceeteris
hominibus anima est inspirata princi-
pio, quae excelleret, non diversitate
generis, sed sublimitate virtutis." Ep.
35 fin. vid. also Ep. 28. 3. Ep. 31. 2.
Ep. 165. 9. Serm. 22. 2. and 25. 5.
It may be asked whether this doctrine
does not interfere with that of the imma-
culate conception ; but that miracle was
wrought in order that our Lord might
not be born in original sin, and does not
affect, or rather includes, His taking
flesh of the substance of the Virgin, i. e.
of a fallen nature. If indeed sin were
of the substance of our fallen nature,
as some heretics have said, then He
could not have taken our nature without
242 God the Word exalted in such sense as He teas humbled;
Disc. His own promotion ! : for the Word of God is without want
and full ; but rather we were promoted from Him ; for
-He is the Light, which lighteneth every man that cometh
te/nal into the world.
advance . ,
9. And in vain do the Allans lay stress upon the conjunc-
tion wherefore, because Paul has said, Wherefore hath God
highly exalted Him. For in saying this he did not imply
^-T^KO- any prize of virtue, nor the promotion from advance2, but
terna?" the cause why the exaltation was bestowed upon us. And what
advance, js thjs but that He who existed in form of God, the Son
52. ' of a divine3 Father, humbled Himself and became a servant
3 tfytwf instead of us and in our behalf? For if the Lord had not
become man, we had not been redeemed from sins: not
raised from the dead, but remaining dead under the earth ;
not exalted into heaven, but lying in Hades. Because
of us then and in our behalf are the words, highly exalted
and given.
§. 44. 10. This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that,
4 i**x»»- a very ecclesiastical sense 4. However, there is another
I^T^id way m which one might remark upon it, giving the same sense
Scrap. in a parallel way ; viz. that, though it does not speak of the
contr.' exaltation of the Word Himself, so far as He is Word5, (for
7*33' 6* ^e *s> as was Just now sa^' most n*gh and like His Father,)
50rat ii ^et ^y reason °f His incarnation it alludes to His resurrection
$.8. from the dead. For after saying, He hath humbled Him-
self even unto death, He immediately added, Wherefore He
partaking our sinfulness ; but if sin be, Anton. 20.) " not as if," he says, " the
as it is, a fault of the will, then the devil wrought in man a nature, (God
Divine Power of the "Word could forbid !) for of a nature the devil cannot
sanctify the human will, and keep it be maker (fcyMMg^r) as is the impiety
from swerving in the direction of evil, of the Manichees, but he wrought a
Hence S. Austin says, " We say not bias of nature by transgression, and « so
that Christ by the felicity of a flesh death reigned over all men.' Where-
separated from sense could not feel the fore, saith He, < the Son of God came
desire of sin, but that by perfection of to destroy the works of the devil ;'
virtue, and by a flesh not begotten what works ? that nature, which God
through concupiscence of the flesh, He made sinless, and the devil biassed to
had not the desire of sin." Op. Imperf. the transgression of God's command
iv. 48. On the other hand, S. Athana- and the finding out of sin which is death,
sius expressly call sitManichean doctrine did God the Word raise again, so as to
to consider, T«V tfvfiv of the flesh etfta.^- be secure from the devil's bias and the
Way, xa.} el T»>V v^iv. contr. Apoll. i. 12 findingoutof sin. And therefore the Lord
fin. or <pt«r/*»iv iTv«< rnv a^a^r/av. ibid. i. said, ' The prince of this world cometh
14 fin. His argument in the next ch. is and findeth nothing in Me.' " vid. also
on the ground that all natures are from §. 19. Ibid. ii. 6. he speaks of the devil
God, but God made man upright nor having introduced the law of sin." vid.
is the author of evil ; (vid. also Vit. also §. 9.
viz. in the body, on the Resurrection, because He was God. 243
hath highly exalted Him ; wishing to shew, that, although CHAP.
as man He is said to have died, yet, as being Life, He was XI'
exalted on the resurrection; for He who descended, is MeEph. 4,
same also who rose again. He descended in body, and He^a,TaV
rose again because He was God Himself in the body. And this but &?*•
again is the reason why according to this meaning Fie brought /2"jrec't
in the conjunction Wherefore; not as a reward of virtue nor of
advancement, but to signify the cause why the resurrection took
place; and why, while all other men from Adam down to this
time have died and remained dead, He only rose in integrity
from the dead. The cause is this, which He Himself has already
taught us, that, being God, He has become man. For all
other men, being merely born of Adam, died, and death reigned
over them; but He, the Second Man, is from heaven, for the John i,
Word was made flesh, and this Man is said to Jbe from 14<
heaven and heavenly1, because the Word descended from1 in
heaven ; wherefore He was not held under death.
though He humbled Himself, suffering His own Body to reach
unto death, in that it was capable2 of death1, yet it was highly
exalted from earth, because He was God's Son in a body.
Accordingly what is here said, Wherefore God also hath highly
exalted Him, answers to St. Peter's words in the Acts, Whom Acts 2,
God raised up, having loosed the bonds of death, because it 24*
was not possible that He should be holden of it. For as
Paul has written, " Since being in form of God He became
man, and humbled Himself unto death, therefore God also
hath highly exalted Him," so also Peter says, " Since,
being God, He became man, and signs and wonders proved
1 It was a point in controversy with placed Himself under those laws, and
the extreme Monophysites, that is, the died naturally, vid. Athan. contr. Apoll.
Eutychians, whether our Lord's body i. 17. and that after the resurrection
Was naturally subject to death, the Ca- His body became incorruptible, not ae-
tholics maintaining the affirmative, as cording to nature, but by grace, vid.
Athanasius here. Eutyches asserted Leont. de Sect. x. p. 530. Anast.
that our Lord had not a human nature, Hodeg. c. 23. To express their doc-
by which he meant among other things trine of the vvrt^Qvif of our Lord's man-
that His manhood was not subject to hood the Eutychians made use of the
the laws of a body, but so far as He Catholic expression " ut voluit." vid.
submitted to them, did so by an act of Athan. 1. c. Eutyches ap. Leon,
will in each particular case ; and this, Ep. 21. " quomodo voluit et scit,"
lest it should seem that He was moved by twice, vid. also Eranist. i. p. 11. ii. p.
the Tfu6n against His will axoufitas ; and 105. Leont. contr. Nest. i. p. 967.
consequently that His manhood was not Pseudo-Athan. Serm. adv. Div. Heer,
subject to death. But the Catholics §. 8. (t. 2. p. 570.)
maintained that He. had voluntarily
244 What belongs to the manhood, belongs to the Per son of the Word
Disc. Him to beholders to be God, therefore it was not possible
I: that He should be holden of death." To man it was not
possible to prosper in this matter ; for death belongs to man ;
wherefore, the Word, being God, became flesh, that, being
put to death in the flesh, He might quicken all men by His
own power.
§. 45. 1 1. But since He Himself is said to be exalted, and God gave
\xAr- Him, and the heretics think this a defect1 or affection in the
substance* of the Word, it becomes necessary to explain how
these words are used. He is said to be exalted from the
lower parts of the earth, because, on the other hand, death is
ascribed to Him. Both events are reckoned His, since it
was His Body *, and none other's, that was exalted from the
dead and taken up into heaven. And again, the Body being
His, and the Word not being external to it, it is natural that
when the Body was exalted, He, as man, should, because of
the body, be spoken of as exalted. If then He did not become
man, let this not be said of Him ; but if the Word became
flesh, of necessity the resurrection and exaltation, as in the
case of a man, must be ascribed to Him, that the death
which is ascribed to Him may be a redemption of the sins of
k At first sight it would seem as if not to confess the Word's body, (or
St. Athanasiushereused «&?/« substance the body of God in the Person of the
for subsistence, or person ; but this is Word,) the Word's death, (as Athan.
not true except with an explanation, in the text,) the Word's exaltation, and
Its direct meaning is here, as usual, sub- the Word's, or God's Mother, who was
stance, though indirectly to come to im- in consequence called hovow, which
ply subsistence. He is speaking of was the expression on which the con-
that Divine Essence which, though also troversy mainly turned. "The God-
the Almighty Father's, is as simply head, "says Athan. elsewhere, li i dwelt
and entirely the Word's as if it were in the flesh bodily; which is all one
only His. Nay, even when the Sub- with saying, that, being God, He had
stance of the Father is spoken of in a a proper body, 73/ov, and using this as an
sort of contrast to that of the Son, as in instrument, o^y«v*», He became man,
the phrase «utr1et i% eitfiut, harsh as such for our sakes ; and because of this
expressions are, it is not accurate to things proper to the flesh are said to be
say that evria is used for subsistence or His, since He was in it, as hunger,
person, or that two tufitu are spoken of. thirst, suffering, fatigue, and the like,
(vid.supr. p. 155, note f.) except, that is, of which the flesh is capable, ^txnxtj ;
by Arians, as Eusebius, supr. p. 63, while the works proper to the Word
note g.- Just below we find Qvng r»v Himself, as raising the dead, and restor-
Xayat;, §. 51 init. • ing sight to the blind, and curing the
1 This was the question which came issue of blood, He did Himself through
into discussion in the Nestorian contro- His body, &c.' " Orat. iii. 31. vid. the
•versy, when, as it was then expressed, whole passage, which is as precise as if
all that took place in respect to the it had been written after the Nesto-
Eternal Word as man, belonged to His rian and Eutychian controversies,
Person, and therefore might be predi- though without the technical words
cated of Him ; so that it was heretical then adopted.
The Word gives as God what He receives as man. 245
men and an abolition of death, and that the resurrection and CHAP.
XI
exaltation may for His sake remain secure for us. In both
respects he hath said of Him, God hath highly exalted
Him, and God hath given to Him ; that herein moreover he
may shew that it is not the Father that hath become
flesh, but it is His Word, who has become man, and has
received after the manner of men from the Father, and is
exalted by Him, as has been said. And it is plain, nor would
any one dispute it, that what the Father gives, He gives
through the Son. And it is marvellous and overwhelming
verily, that the grace which the Son gives from the Father,
that the Son Himself is said to receive ; and the exaltation,
which the Son effects from the Father, with that, the Son is
Himself exalted. For He who is the Son of God, He Himself
became the Son of Man ; and, as Word, He gives from the
Father, for all things which the Father does and gives, He
does and supplies through Him; and as the Son of Man,
He Himself is said after the manner of men to receive what |
proceeds from Him, because His Body is none other than His, ^uirn
and is a natural recipient of grace, as has been said. For He 2 T^ ^^
received it as far as man's nature1 was exalted ; which exalt- f
atioii was its being deified. But such an exaltation th
Word Himself always had according to the Father's God- JJJJ; P^
head2 and perfection, which was His. r.
CHAP. XII.
TEXTS EXPLAINED ; SECONDLY, PSALM xlv. 7, 8.
Whether the words " therefore," " anointed," &c. imply that the Word has
been rewarded. Argued against first from the word "fellows" or " par-
takers." He is anointed with the Spirit in His manhood to sanctify
human nature. Therefore the Spirit descended on Him in Jordan, when
in the flesh. And He is said to sanctify Himself for us, and give us the
glory He has received. The word " wherefore" implies His divinity.
" Thou hast loved righteousness," &c. do not imply trial or choice.
Vise. 1. SUCH an explanation of the Apostle's words, confutes the
-r— • '- — irreligious men ; and what the Psalmist says admits also the
' same orthodox sense, which they misinterpret, but which in
the Psalmist is manifestly religious. He says then, Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever ; a sceptre of righteous-
ness is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom. Thou hast loved
righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore God, even Thy
God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy
fellows. Behold, O ye Arians, and acknowledge even hence
1 furt- the truth. The Psalmist speaks of all us as fellows or partakers 1
of the Lord ; but were He one of things which come out of
nothing and of things generate, He Himself had been one
of those who partake. But, since He hymned Him as the
eternal God, saying, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and
ever, and has declared that all other things partake of Him,
what conclusion must we draw, but that He is distinct from
generated things, and He only the Father's veritable Word,
note^' Ractiance> and Wisdom, which all things generate partake2,
being sanctified by Him in the Spirit11? And therefore He is
here " anointed," not that He may become God, for He was
* It is here said that all things gene- Principle of reason, as by Origen,
rate partake tbe Son and are sanctified vid. ap. Athan. Serap. iv. 9. vid. him-
by the Spirit. How a •yiwmris or adop- self, de Incarn. 11. These offices of
tion through the Son is necessary for the Son and the Spirit are contrasted
every creature in order to its consist- by S. Basil, in his de Sp. S. rov -rgo-
ence, life, or preservation, has been ex- ffreirrovret Aayav, rot^nftiovgyouvret Xoyov,
plained, supr. p. 32, note q. Sometimes TO fripivv •gnu^.a.^ &c, c, 16, n. 38,
the Son was considered as the special
Our Lord was anointed, as He was exalted, for us. 247
so even before ; nor that He may become King, for He had CHAP.
the Kingdom eternally, existing as God's Image, as the 1-
sacred Oracle shews ; but in our behalf is this written, as
before. For the Israelitish kings, upon their being anointed,
then became kings, not being so before, as David, as Ezekias,
as Josias, and the rest; but the Saviour on the contrary,
being God, and ever ruling in the Father's Kingdom, and
being Himself the Dispenser of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless
is here said to be anointed, that, as before, being said as
man to be anointed with the Spirit, He might provide for us
men, not only exaltation and resurrection, but the indwelling
and intimacy1 of the Spirit. And signifying this the Lord ' «*««-
Himself hath said by His own mouth in the Gospel accord- r*
ing to John, / have sent them into the world, and for their Johni7,
sakes do I sanctify Myself, that they may be sanctified in
the truth*. In saying this He has shewn that He is not the2vi<?-
sanctified, but the Sanctifier ; for He is not sanctified byihesaur.
other, but Himself sanctifies Himself, that we may be20'197
sanctified in the truth. He who sanctifies Himself is Lord
of sanctification. How then does this take place ? What
does He mean but this ? " I, being the Father's Word, I
give to Myself, when become man, the Spirit ; and Myself,
become man, do I sanctify in Him, that henceforth in Me,
who am Truth, (for Thy Word is Truth,) all may be
sanctified."
2. If then for our sake He sanctifies Himself, and does §• 47.
this when He becomes man, it is very plain that the Spirit's
descent on Him in Jordan, was a descent upon us, because of
His bearing our body. And it did not take place for pro-
motion3 to the Word, but again for our sanctification, that 3*
we might share His anointing, and of us it might be said,
Know ye not that ye are God's Temple, and the Spirit ofi Cor.3,
God dwelleth in you ? For when the Lord, as man, was 16'
washed in Jordan, it was we who were washed in Him and
by Him4. And when He received the Spirit, we it was who* P™^
by Him were made recipients of It. And moreover for thistism, 2d
reason, not as Aaron or David or the rest, was He anointed with ^vPP-
oil, but in another way above all His fellows, with the oil of '293.
gladness; which He Himself interprets to be the Spirit, say-
ing by the Prophet, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, jbai. 61,
248 TJie Christ is tlie man anointed by the Word.
Disc, because the Lord hath anointed Me; as also the Apostle
1: has said, How God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost.
38.* 'When then were these things spoken of Him but when
He came in the flesh and was baptized in Jordan, and the
Spirit descended on Him ? And indeed the Lord Himself
Johni6, said, The Spirit shall take of Mine ; and I will send Him;
20' 22. an^ to -^is disciples, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. And
notwithstanding, He who, as the Word and Radiance of
the Father, gives to others, now is said to be sanctified,
because now He has become man, and the Body that is
sanctified is His. From Him then we have begun to receive
i John the unction and the seal, John saying, And ye have an
Eph.'i, unction from the Holy One ; and the Apostle, And ye were
sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Therefore because
of us and for us are these words.
3. What advance then of promotion, and reward of virtue
or generally of conduct, is proved from this in our Lord's
instance ? For if He was not God, and then had become
God, if not being King He was preferred to the Kingdom,
your reasoning would have had some faint plausibility.
But if He is God and the throne of His kingdom is ever-
lasting, in what way could God advance ? or what was there
wanting to Him who was sitting on His Father's throne ?
And if, as the Lord Himself has said, the Spirit is His, and
takes of His, and He sends It, it is not the Word, considered
1 P- 24°j as the Word l and Wisdom, who is anointed with the Spirit
which He Himself gives, but the flesh assumed by Him
which is anointed in Him and by Himb; that the sanctifi-
b Elsewhere Athan. says that our sanctifying by an energy as the other
Lord's Godhead was the immediate Christs [anointed] but by a presence
anointing or chrism of the manhood He of Him whole who anointed, SXtv reu
assumed. " God needed not the anoint- xficvrtt ; whence it came to pass that
ing, nor was the anointing made without what anointed was called man and what
God; but God both applied it, and also was anointed was made God." Orat. 30.
received it in that body which was 20. " He Himself anointed Himself-
capable of it." in Apollin. ii. 3. and <ro anointing as God the body with His God-
X,([ifff*.tt, \yu o X'oyos, ro Si %£if0iv v-r head, and anointed as man." Damasc.
iftou o u*0£u<>ros. Orat. iv. §. 36. rid. F. O. iii. 3. Dei Filius, sicut pluvia in
Origen. Periarch. ii. 6. n. 4. And S. vellus, totodivinitatisunguento nostram
Greg. Naz. still more expressly, and se fuditin carnem. Chrysolog. Serm. 60.
from the same text as Athan. " The It is more common, however, to con-
Father anointed Him < with the oil of sider that the anointing was the descent
gladness above His fellows,' anointing of the Spirit, as Athan. says at the
the manhood with the Godhead." Orat. beginning of this section, according to
x. fin. Again, " This [the Godhead] Luke iv. 18. Acts x, 38.
is the anointing of the manhood, not
TJie Word, before His incarnation, dispensed the Spirit. 249
cation coming to the Lord as man, may come to all men CHAP.
from Him. For not of Itself, saith He, doth the Spirit XIL
speak, but the Word is He who gives It to the worthy. For
this is like the passage considered above ; for as the Apostle
has written, Who existing in form of God thought it not
robbery to be equal with God, but humbled Himself, and
took a servant's form, so David celebrates the Lord, as the
everlasting God and King, but sent to us and assuming our
body which is mortal. For this is his meaning in the
Psalm, All Thy garments" smell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia; Ps. 45,
and it is represented by Nicodemus and by Mary's company, 9*
when he came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about Johni9,
an hundred pounds weight ; and they the spices which £/'<?*/ Luke24
had prepared for the burial of the Lord's body. *•
4. What advancement1 then was it to the Immortal to have §. 48.
assumed the mortal ? or what promotion is it to the Ever-1"^*"™
lasting to have put on the temporal ? what reward can be
great to the Everlasting God and King in the bosom of the
Father 1 See ye not, that this too was done and written
because of us and for us, that us who are mortal and tem-
poral, the Lord, become man, might make immortal, and
bring into the everlasting kingdom of heaven ? Blush ye
not, speaking lies against the divine oracles ? For when our
Lord Jesus Christ had been among us. we indeed were pro-
moted, as rescued from sin; but He is the same2: nor did2P-23>
_. - note fi»
He alter, when He became man, (to repeat what I haveinfra,
said,) but, as has been written, Tlie Word of God abidethfor^'^
ever. Surely as, before His becoming man, He, the Word, 8. xoya?
dispensed to the saints the Spirit as His own3, so also when/1'"'1"
made man, He sanctifies all by the Spirit and says to His ^236,
Disciples, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. And He gave to
Moses and the other seventy ; and through Him David
prayed to the Father, saying, Take not Thy Holy Spirit ft- 61,
from me. On the other hand, when made man, He said, Jo'hnl5>
/ will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth ; and 26.
He sent Him, He, the Word of God, as being faithful.
c Our Lord's manhood is spoken of the high priest's garment, but remain-
as a garment; more distinctly after- ing the same, was but clothed &c. Orat.
wards, " As Aaron was himself, and ii. 8. On the Apollinarian ahuse of
did not change on putting round him the idea, vid. note in loc.
Johnl7,
22.
1 Cyril.
Thesaur.
20. p.
197.
250 Man's nature changed in the Unchangeable Word.
5. Therefore Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day,
and for ever, remaining unalterable, and at once gives and
receives, giving as God's Word, receiving as man. It is not
the Word then, viewed as the Word, that is promoted ; for
He had all things and has them always; but men, who have in
Him and through Him their origin d of receiving them. For,
when He is now said to be anointed in a human respect, we
it is who in Him are anointed ; since also, when He is bap-
tized, we it is who in Him are baptized. But on all these
things the Saviour throws much light, when He says to the
Father, And the glory ivhich Thou gavest Me, I have given
to them, that they may be one, even as We are one. Because
of us then He asked for glory, and the words occur, took
and gave and highly exalted, that we might take, and to us
might be given, and we might be exalted, in Him ; as also for
us He sanctifies Himself, that we might be sanctified in Him L.
bootlessly, saying that, since we adhere
to Him, not in a bodily way, but rather
by faith and the affection of love accord-
ing to the Law, therefore He has called,
not His own flesh the vine , but rather the
Godhead?" in Joann. 10. p. 863, 4. And
Nyssen : " As they who have taken poi-
son,destroyitsdeadlypowerbysome other
preparation. . . .so when we have tasted
what destroys our nature, we have need
of that instead which restores what was
destroyed. . . .But what is this? nothing
else than that Body which has been
proved to be mightier than death, and
was the beginning, xarv$a<ra, of our life.
For a little leaven," &c. Orat. Catech.
37. Decocta quasi per ollam carnis nos-
trae cruditate, sanctificavit in geternum
nobiscibumcarnemsuam.Paulin.Ep.23.
Of course in such statements nothing
material is implied ; or, as Hooker says,
" The mixture of His bodily substance
with ours is a thing which the ancient
Fathers disclaim. Yet the mixture of
His flesh with ours they speak of, to
signify what our very bodies through
mystical conjunction receive from that
vital efficacy which we know to be in
His, and from bodily mixtures they bor-
row divers similitudes rather to declare
the truth than the manner of coherence
between His sacred and the sanctified
bodies of saints." Eccl. Pol. v. 56. §. 10.
But without some explanation of this
nature, language such as S. Athana-
sius's in the text seems a mere matter
of words, vid. infr. §. 50 fin.
d The word origin, «££«, implies the
doctrine, more fully brought out in other
passages of the Fathers, that our Lord
has deigned to become an instrumental
cause,as it maybe called, of the life of each
individual Christian. For at first sight it
may be objected to the whole course of
Athan.'s argument thus ; — What con-
nection is there between the sanctifica-
tion of Christ's manhood and ours ? how
does itprove that human nature issancti-
fied because a particular specimen of it
was sanctified inHimPS.Chrysostom ex-
plains; "Heisborn of our substance :you
will say, l This does not pertain to all ;'
yea, to all. He mingles (ava^/yviwv)
Himself with the faithful individually,
through the mysteries, and whom He
has begotten those He nurses from
Himself, not puts them out to other
hands, "&c. Horn. 82. in Matt. 5. And
just before, " It sufficed not for Him
to be made man, to be scourged, to be
sacrificed ; but He assimilates us to
Him (ivaQvgti tKvrbv fift7v) nor merely by
faith, but really, has He made us His
body." Again, " That we are com-
mingled (iva.ttsgK<r0uftiv) into that flesh,
not merely through love, but really, is
broughtaboutbymeansof that food which
He has bestowed upon us." Horn. 4C. in
Joann.3. And so S. Cyril writes against
Nestorius : " Since we have proved
that Christ is the Vine, and we
branches as adhering to a commu-
nion with Him, not spiritual merely but
bodily, why clamours he against us thus
The Wordnot anointed, and so God; butGod,andso anointedSS 1
6. But if they take advantage of the word wherefore, as CHAP.
connected with the passage in the Psalm, Wherefore God,
even Thy God, hath anointed Thee, for their own purposes, *' ***'
let these novices in Scripture and masters in irreligion
know, that, as before, the word wherefore does not imply
reward of virtue or conduct in the Word, but the reason wrhy
He came down to us, and of the Spirit's anointing which
took place in Him for our sakes. For he says not, " Where-
fore He anointed Thee in order to Thy being God or King
or Son or Word ;" for so He was before and is for ever, as
has been shewn ; but rather, " Since Thou art God and
King, therefore Thou wast anointed, since none but Thou
couldest unite man to the Holy Ghost, Thou the Image
of the Father, in which1 we were made in the beginning ;' p. 254,
for Thine is even the Spirit." For the nature of things notei'
generate could give no warranty for this, Angels having
transgressed, and men disobeyed6. Wherefore there was need
of God ; and the Word is God ; that those who had become
under a curse, He Himself might set free. If then He was
of nothing, He would not have been the Christ or Anointed,
being one among others and having fellowship as the rest2. 2p- 15,
But, whereas He is God, as being Son of God, and is ever-
lasting King, and exists as Radiance and Expression of the Heb. 1,
Father, wherefore fitly is He the expected Christ, whom the 3<
Father announces to mankind, by revelation to His holy
Prophets ; that as through Him we have come to be, so also
in Him all men might be redeemed from their sins, and by
Him all things might be ruled f. And this is the cause of
e uyyiKuv f*tv va£x@*vruv , avfyevxav should become the Son of man. His
% vra^axetxravTwv. vid. infr. §. 51 init. Throne, as God, is for ever; He has
And so ad Afr. 7. ayytX&>» p\i -ret- loved righteousness ; therefore He is
eetfiuvrat, rev $» 'AZap -ra^axevffuvref, equal to the anointing of the Spirit, as
where the inference is added more man. And so S. Cyril on the same
distinctly, " and all creatures need- text, as in 1. c. in the foregoing note,
ing the grace of the Word," who is " In this ineffable unity of the Trinity,
*«««•«*, whereas re-*™ TO. ywr*. whose words and judgments are common
vid. supr. p. 32, note q. vid. infr. in all, the Person of the Son has fitly
Orat. ii. iii. Cyril, in Joann. lib. v. 2. undertaken to repair the race of man,
On the subject of the sins of Angels, that, since He it is by whom all things
vid. Huet. Origen. ii. 5. §. 16. Petav. were made, and without whom nothing
Dogm t 3. p. 87. Dissert. Bened. in is made, and who breathed the truth of
Cyril. Hier. iii. 5. Natal. Alex. Hist, rational life into men iashioned of the
Mt i Diss 7. dust °f ^ie eart^? so He to° s"ould re-
f ' The word 'wherefore is here declared store to its lost dignity our nature thus
to denote the fitness why the Son of God fallen from the citadel of eternity, and
252 The Word gave His flesh the Spirit, and it did miracles.
Disc, the anointing which took place in Him, and of the incarnate
__L_ presence of the Word* ; which the Psalmist foreseeing, cele-
brates, first His Godhead and kingdom, which is the Father's,
Ps.45,5.jn these tones, THiy throne, O God, is for ever and ever ; a
sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom; then,
v. 8. announces His descent to us 
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11